Tidwell v. State

The trial court's error in failing to instruct the jury following closing arguments on the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt was harmless, given that the trial court included these instructions in its preliminary charge, referred the jury back to the instructions in its final charge, and did so in the context of a 1-day trial.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Floyd County jury convicted Billy Joe Tidwell of terroristic threats OCGA § 16-11-37 a and aggravated battery OCGA § 16-5-24 a. On appeal, Tidwell claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We disagree. He also contends that the trial court erred i in instructing the jury that Tidwell could commit the crime of terroristic threats in a manner not averred in the indictment, and ii in failing to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and burden of proof following closing argument. We agree with Tidwell that the trial court erred, but we find that the errors were harmless because there was no reasonable possibility that Tidwell was convicted for committing terroristic threats in a manner not averred by the indictment, and because the trial court gave complete instructions to the jury during the course of the one-day trial, albeit not in the sequence required by OCGA § 5-5-24 b. Lastly, Tidwell claims that the trial court failed to adequately recharge the jury on the corroboration needed to convict him of terroristic threats. We conclude that Tidwell waived this objection. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and an appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.” Rankin v. State , 278 Ga. 704, 705 606 SE2d 269 2004. Rather “we determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thomas v. State , 254 Ga. App. 226, 227 1 561 SE2d 444 2002. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

So viewed, the evidence shows that Tidwell and the victim, who were in a romantic relationship, shared an apartment. Tidwell became abusive towards the victim. He did not allow the victim to go anywhere by herself apart from work, where she was expected to call him at every break.

Tidwell v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report