Ellicott v. State

The defendant could not present evidence of his reputation for nonviolence from the two proffered witnesses, since neither of them were familiar with the defendant's reputation in the community in which he resided.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following his conviction by a jury of five counts of aggravated battery OCGA § 16-5-24 a, four counts of aggravated assault OCGA § 16-5-21 a 2, rape OCGA § 16-6-1 a 1, two counts of aggravated sodomy OCGA § 16-6-2 a 2, and one count of false imprisonment OCGA § 16-5-41 a.1 Michael Ellicott appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. Ellicott contends that the trial court erred 1 in failing to excuse a biased juror for cause; 2 in preventing him from presenting evidence of his reputation for nonviolence; 3 in failing to create a record of its in camera review of potential Brady material; and 4 by acting in a coercive manner towards the jury during their deliberations. Ellicott also contends that 5 the trial court was biased against Ellicott, thereby violating his right to a fair trial, and 6 trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the victim with her prior sworn testimony. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Ellicott’s convictions.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, a defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict. . . . We neither weigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, but merely ascertain that the evidence is sufficient to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses are a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve. As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.

Ellicott v. State

The defendant could not present evidence of his reputation for nonviolence from the two proffered witnesses, since neither of them were familiar with the defendant's reputation in the community in which he resided.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report