Cornell v. State
2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 13, 656 S.E.2d 191, 289 Ga.App. 52 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Georgia, a defendant waives an objection to the admission of similar transaction evidence by failing to renew the objection at trial, even if the same objection was raised and ruled upon at a pretrial hearing. For similar transaction evidence to be admissible, the prior act must be sufficiently similar to the charged offense, focusing on similarities over differences, and the trial court’s finding of similarity is reviewed for clear error.
Facts:
- On June 18, 2002, Robert Conn, a Wal-Mart asset protection employee, observed Gwendolyn Cornell take a $90 razor from a display.
- Cornell took the razor to the hardware department, used pliers to open its plastic packaging, and removed security tags.
- Cornell then attempted to obtain a refund for the razor without a receipt, was refused, concealed the razor in a Wal-Mart bag, and left the store without paying.
- On May 1, 2006, Jeffery Hanson, a Macy’s loss prevention detective, observed Gwendolyn Cornell taking two shirts from a display and hiding them in a shopping bag.
- Cornell then presented those two shirts, along with two other shirts she already had in her bag, for a refund, obtaining a store credit for $106.96.
- After Cornell was intercepted, a police officer found children’s clothing with J. C. Penney tags still attached inside Cornell’s shopping bag.
- Cornell’s co-defendant, Donnella Wilson, was seen leaving J. C. Penney’s with a large, full shopping bag containing over $700 worth of new children’s clothing with tags, and Wilson admitted she had stolen the items.
- Cornell later admitted that she had intentionally presented for a refund the two shirts she had not paid for, and that she and Wilson had entered the mall that day planning to steal items and sell them.
Procedural Posture:
- Gwendolyn Cornell was charged with two counts of shoplifting: one with a co-defendant, Donnella Wilson, and one independently.
- A pretrial similar transaction hearing was held pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3(B), where Cornell objected to the admission of similar transaction testimony on the ground of lack of sufficient similarity.
- During the jury trial, the state introduced evidence of Cornell's prior conviction for shoplifting in 2002.
- At trial, Cornell's counsel initially stated no objection to this testimony and later objected only on the ground that the evidence did not show 'intent and course of conduct.'
- The jury found Gwendolyn Cornell guilty of two counts of shoplifting.
- Cornell appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant waive an objection to the admission of similar transaction evidence on grounds of insufficient similarity by failing to renew that objection at trial, even if it was raised at a pretrial hearing; and if not waived, was the prior shoplifting incident sufficiently similar to the charged offenses to justify its admission?
Opinions:
Majority - Mikell, Judge
Yes, Gwendolyn Cornell waived her objection to the similar transaction evidence by not renewing it at trial, even though she had previously objected at a pretrial hearing. The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that controlling precedent requires a defendant to object to similar transaction evidence at trial to preserve the issue for appellate review, regardless of any pretrial objections. Despite this waiver, the court further concluded that even if the objection had been preserved, it would have found the prior transaction sufficiently similar. Both the prior shoplifting incident and the charged offenses involved shoplifting from large retail establishments, stealing easily hidden items, and attempting or succeeding in obtaining refunds for unpaid goods or concealing the items after leaving the store. The court emphasized that the proper focus for similarity is on common elements rather than minor differences, and found no clear error in the trial court's decision to admit the evidence. Finally, the court noted that even if the evidence had been improperly admitted, the error would have been harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Cornell's guilt, including eyewitness testimony and her own admissions.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the procedural requirement in Georgia that objections to similar transaction evidence must be renewed at trial to be preserved for appeal, even if a pretrial objection was lodged. It provides important guidance on the 'sufficiently similar' standard for admissibility of such evidence, clarifying that courts should focus on key commonalities rather than requiring an exact mirror image of the prior and charged acts. Furthermore, the application of the harmless error doctrine underscores that appellate courts will not reverse a conviction for an evidentiary error if there is no reasonable probability that the error affected the trial's outcome, especially when other evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
