Bolick v. State

The state did not violate Brady since defense counsel admittedly had access to the victim's statement prior to trial and the state had no affirmative duty to disclose the statement since it was not clearly exculpatory.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Michael Jason Bolick appeals pro se from the denial of his motion for new trial, which followed his May 1998 convictions for burglary, kidnapping, kidnapping with bodily injury, false imprisonment, robbery, aggravated battery, and aggravated assault.1 In a comprehensive order, the trial court specifically considered and rejected each of the errors enumerated in Bolick’s motion for new trial. On appeal, without challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented, Bolick raises the same enumerations of error. As the trial court’s conclusions were supported by the record and the applicable law, we affirm.

The relevant facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,2 are as follows: On November 12, 1997, Bolick went to the victim’s home in Cartersville, Bartow County. He had previously done some repair work on her home, and she recognized him from those encounters. Bolick went to the victim’s home with the intention of robbing her so that he could get money for drugs. However, he pretended to be interested in puppies that the victim previously had offered to him. The victim had no more puppies available, but offered to call Bolick if another dog became available. After the victim thought Bolick had left, he rang her door bell again, supposedly to give her a phone number where he could be reached. While she wrote down the number, Bolick suddenly grabbed the victim around the neck from behind. He bound her hands behind her back with two sets of handcuffs; during his brief absence, he had retrieved the handcuffs from his truck. Bolick choked her and dragged her through the house to the bedroom. Bolick “threw” the victim on the bed and “ripped” her jeans and boots off.

Bolick v. State

The state did not violate Brady since defense counsel admittedly had access to the victim's statement prior to trial and the state had no affirmative duty to disclose the statement since it was not clearly exculpatory.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report