In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: September 12, 2016
S16A0986. THE STATE v. HAMILTON.
NAHMIAS, Justice.
At a trial in March 2011, the jury found Marlina Hamilton guilty of felony
murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of her ex-
husband, Christopher Donaldson. In September 2015, the trial court granted
Hamilton’s motion for new trial on the general and other grounds. The State
appeals from that decision, but we affirm it.
1. The evidence presented at trial showed the following. Hamilton and
Donaldson began their relationship in 2000. In 2001, they moved into an
apartment together and had a son; D’Angelo, Hamilton’s son from a previous
relationship, also lived with them. At trial, several witnesses, including
Hamilton, testified that Donaldson physically abused her on multiple occasions
over the years. In early 2001, Donaldson accused Hamilton of cheating on him
and “beat her.” That summer, he “jumped” on Hamilton because he blamed her
for their home being burglarized. On another occasion, Hamilton and
Donaldson got into an argument and he “beat [her] down and hit [her] with a
broom in [her] stomach.” Hamilton’s friend Angela Whitaker testified that
during this period she saw bruises on Hamilton’s arms and legs several times
and that Hamilton told her on a few different occasions that she fought with
Donaldson. After one of these fights, Whitaker had to take a piece of glass out
of Hamilton’s back.
In 2004, Hamilton became pregnant with twins. When she informed
Donaldson, he punched her in the mouth and told her he did not want her to
keep the babies. For the next two weeks, the couple fought constantly until
Hamilton agreed to have an abortion. After the abortion, Hamilton moved in
with her mother for a year, but in 2005, the couple got back together. That same
year, Donaldson was arrested for drug crimes. After his attorney suggested that
he would get a lighter sentence if the couple were married, Donaldson and
Hamilton got married in January 2006, two days before he was sentenced. In
March 2006, after discovering that Donaldson was cheating on her, Hamilton
filed for divorce; the divorce was finalized in 2008.
Donaldson was released from prison in March 2010, and three months
2
later he asked Hamilton to get back together. When Hamilton denied his
request, he punched her several times and raped her in her home. As a result,
she became pregnant. A friend arranged for her to have an abortion, and
Donaldson accompanied her to the procedure. In July, Hamilton went to
Donaldson’s home to get a grill. He told her that he had driven by her house the
previous night and noticed that her car was missing, and he questioned her about
being with another man. Hamilton tried to leave, but Donaldson grabbed her
and tried to choke her; she fought back and scratched his neck. In August,
Donaldson became angry about Hamilton’s relationship with another man, and
he hit her on the side of her face and punched her in her side in front of her
children.
On September 7, Hamilton found her car tires slashed. Later that month,
she noticed that her car smelled of gasoline and saw burned matches on her car.
The same day, she found vulgar words spray painted on the side of her house.
Hamilton called the police and informed them that she believed the person
responsible was her current boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend. On October 7, Donaldson
told Hamilton that he had been going through her mail for a week and found a
letter from her previous boyfriend that made him “genuinely mad.” He
3
proceeded to “jump” on Hamilton. She tried to run down the stairs, but he
grabbed her, pulled her back, and choked her. He then asked for another chance
at their relationship, to which Hamilton responded, “if you will just stop this, I
will do it.” On October 10, Donaldson began moving into Hamilton’s house in
Albany.
In her testimony at trial, Hamilton recounted the events of October 11-12,
2010, as follows. Early in the evening, Donaldson and Hamilton were talking
in the den when he became angry and started pacing back and forth, punching
his fists and threatening Hamilton, saying, “I am going to show you I ain’t no
joke.” Hamilton went to the bathroom and sent a text message to her friend,
Brandi Jackson, asking her to call the police. The police responded to
Hamilton’s house around 11 p.m.; they gave her information on assistance
regarding domestic violence and ordered Donaldson to leave the residence.
After leaving, Donaldson called Hamilton eight times over a three to four
minute period. Hamilton ignored all but one call, which she answered and told
Donaldson to “stop calling [her].”
Donaldson soon returned to the house. After a conversation with
Hamilton through a window, he let himself inside, and he and Hamilton began
4
talking in the den.1 Initially, Donaldson spoke calmly, apologizing to Hamilton
and asking her to “give him another chance.” After she rejected his request and
asked him to leave, Donaldson began pacing back and forth, saying to himself,
“people think I’m stupid, but I am going to show them.” Donaldson then hit
Hamilton in the back of her head. When he swung toward her again, Hamilton
grabbed a gun that she had under the sofa and shot Donaldson twice in the lower
body.2 Donaldson then began beating and choking Hamilton as they wrestled
for control of the gun. He pointed the gun at her, but she was able to remove the
magazine. He then hit her in the head with the gun and punched her.
Meanwhile, her son D’Angelo, who was awoken by the sound of gun shots,
called the police.
D’Angelo then entered the den and pulled Donaldson off Hamilton, who
1
Several witnesses testified that the front door of the house had a faulty lock and could be
opened without a key by “jiggling” it in a certain fashion.
2
Hamilton had borrowed the gun from her friend Jackson on October 8, and she kept it
under the sofa in the den, which is where she had been sleeping. In her police interview on the night
of the shooting, Hamilton said she had wanted a gun to “scare” Donaldson. She went on to explain,
“I don’t want him to keep jumping on me. I don’t [want] him around. To hurt him. I ain’t trying
to kill him.” At trial, Hamilton said that she had wanted a gun because she was afraid of the recent
vandalization of her property and of Donaldson.
5
went to the kitchen to get a knife.3 Shortly thereafter, the police arrived.
Hamilton dropped the knife and went to the porch, which is where the police
found her. Donaldson was taken to the hospital, but he soon died. The medical
examiner testified that one bullet entered Donaldson’s abdomen at a 45 to 60
degree downward trajectory, and the other bullet entered his right thigh at a 45
to 60 degree upward trajectory. Hamilton told the police that she shot
Donaldson because she “felt like he was going to kill [her] that night.”
On February 23, 2011, a Dougherty County grand jury indicted Hamilton
for malice murder, felony murder based on aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, aggravated assault-family violence, aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. At her
trial from March 6 to 25, 2011, the defense argued that Hamilton had shot
Donaldson in self-defense and that she suffered from battered person syndrome.
See OCGA § 16-3-21 (a), (d). The defense presented an expert witness who
testified about battered person syndrome; the State cross-examined the expert
but did not present any contrary expert testimony. The State argued that
3
Hamilton’s testimony about the situation when D’Angelo entered the den was
corroborated by D’Angelo’s testimony.
6
Hamilton had obtained a gun for the purpose of committing an aggravated
assault against Donaldson, that she was the initial aggressor in the fatal
altercation, and that she did not suffer from battered person syndrome. The jury
acquitted Hamilton of malice murder, but found her guilty of the other charges.
The trial court then sentenced her to serve life in prison for felony murder and
five consecutive years for the firearm charge; the two aggravated assault
verdicts merged with the felony murder count.
On April 27, 2011, Hamilton filed a motion for new trial, which she
amended with new counsel on May 19, 2015, raising the general grounds under
OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 and claims of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel. After an evidentiary hearing on May 29, 2015, the trial court issued an
order on September 3, 2015, granting Hamilton a new trial on the general
grounds and ruling that her trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance in
several respects. The State appeals the new trial order pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-
1 (a) (8). See also OCGA § 5-7-2 (c).
2. As a matter of constitutional due process, the evidence presented at
trial and summarized above was, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
verdicts, legally sufficient to authorize a rational jury to reject Hamilton’s claim
7
of self-defense and find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for
which she was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (99 SCt
2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). See also Anderson v. State, 296 Ga. 524, 526 (769
SE2d 304) (2015); White v. State, 293 Ga. 523, 523 (753 SE2d 115) (2013).
The State asserts that because the evidence was sufficient under the due process
standard, the trial court erred in granting a new trial under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and
5-5-21. That assertion is incorrect.
As this Court has clearly explained,
Even when the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction
[under the Jackson v. Virginia standard], a trial judge may grant a
new trial if the verdict of the jury is “contrary to . . . the principles
of justice and equity,” OCGA § 5-5-20, or if the verdict is
“decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence.” OCGA
§ 5-5-21. When properly raised in a timely motion, these grounds
for a new trial – commonly known as the “general grounds” –
require the trial judge to exercise a “broad discretion to sit as a
‘thirteenth juror.’” In exercising that discretion, the trial judge must
consider some of the things that she cannot when assessing the legal
sufficiency of the evidence, including any conflicts in the evidence,
the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence.
Although the discretion of a trial judge to award a new trial on the
general grounds is not boundless – it is, after all, a discretion that
“should be exercised with caution [and] invoked only in exceptional
cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the
verdict” – it nevertheless is, generally speaking, a substantial
discretion.
8
White, 293 Ga. at 524 (citations and footnote omitted). An appellate court will
not disturb the first grant of a new trial based on the general grounds unless the
trial court abused its discretion in granting it and the law and the facts demand
the verdict rendered. See State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90, 95 (779 SE2d 603) (2015).
See also OCGA § 5-5-50.
In this case, the trial court explained that after it carefully reviewed the
trial transcript and exhibits and “considered the conflicts in the evidence, the
credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of their testimony,” it had concluded
that the jury’s guilty verdicts were “decidedly and strongly against the weight
of the evidence” and “contrary to the principles of justice and equity.” The
court therefore exercised its discretion to grant a new trial. Having reviewed the
record, we cannot say that this conclusion was an abuse of the trial court’s
substantial discretion to act as the “thirteenth juror” in the case. See Cash, 298
Ga. at 97; State v. Harris, 292 Ga. 92, 94 (734 SE2d 357) (2012).
3. In her motion for new trial, Hamilton also asserted that her trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a pretrial
determination on the issue of self-defense immunity from prosecution, see
OCGA § 16-3-24.2; failing to call two additional witnesses to corroborate
9
Hamilton’s claims of abuse by Donaldson; failing to object to the State’s
improper impeachment of defense witness Angela Whitaker; and failing to
object to the State’s attempts to elicit irrelevant and prejudicial testimony about
Hamilton’s past. The trial court ruled that Hamilton’s trial counsel was
constitutionally ineffective in each of these ways. Although the State argues
that the court erred in this respect, we need not decide this issue because these
instances of allegedly deficient performance by defense counsel are unlikely to
recur if Hamilton is tried again. See Stanbury v. State, Case No. S16A0321,
2016 WL 2946426, at *5 (decided May 23, 2016); Cash, 298 Ga. at 97 n.6.
4. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order granting
Hamilton a new trial on the general grounds. Because the evidence presented
at her first trial was constitutionally sufficient to support the jury’s guilty
verdicts, the State may elect to retry her on those counts. However the case is
resolved, the parties and the trial court should proceed with dispatch, given that
Hamilton has already served more than five years in prison.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
10