The Atlanta Gleaner.

Wright v. State, No. S22A1117, 2023 WL 210508 (Ga. Jan. 18, 2023)
#criminal law #capital crimes #bizarre
The evidence at trial showed the following. On May 13, 2017 at 12:50 a.m. a Coffee County 911 operator received a “hang-up” call and called the number back. It rang four times before the defendant Walter Russell Wright answered. Wright told the operator that Oletha Brady had shot herself with his gun. Wright said he didn’t know how she got it because he wore it “by his foot.” 

Sheriff's deputies responded to the home within 10 minutes of the 911 call. When Wright opened the door, the deputies saw Brady lying face-up on the living room floor with a gunshot wound to her torso. Taurus .38 Special revolver on the floor near her body. The .38 Special contained four live rounds and one fired shell.

Wright told one of the deputies that he and Brady were having sex on the couch when the gun in his ankle holster “went off.” The deputy observed the empty gun holster strapped to Wright’s ankle. Wright also gave a second version of the events at the scene to deputies. That while he and Brady were having sex on the couch, Brady got his gun and shot herself. A bullet was later recovered from a blood-stained couch cushion.

At trial, a paramedic who arrived at the home shortly after the deputies arrived testified that Brady was wearing a nightgown and that her body was cold to the touch, her skin was turning gray, she had no pulse, and she was not breathing. The paramedic further testified that she had never seen a body that was cold to the touch and with graying skin within 15 minutes after an injury had occurred. A GBI forensic firearms examiner testified that the .38 Special found next to Brady's body would not fire “without the trigger being pulled and held to the rear.”

The medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Brady was admitted as an expert in forensic pathology and testified at trial as follows. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the torso, which entered the center of Brady's chest just below the breastbone and exited through her back. When the gun was fired, it was anywhere from a few inches to three feet away. The medical examiner concluded that the manner of death was homicide rather than accident or suicide, based on her experience as a medical examiner and her examination of multiple gunshot wound cases involving homicide, accident, and suicide.

After being taken into custody, Wright waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona and was interviewed twice by law enforcement officers. The interviews were video-recorded and played for the jury. According to Wright, he and Brady lived next to each other and had been in an on-and-off relationship for six years, but the relationship had ended. On the evening of the shooting, Wright was outside his home when Brady walked by and invited him over. The two began drinking — and talking about Wright’s relationships with other women. According to Wright, he was involved with three other women and these relationships were “causing issues.”

Wright then provided three conflicting accounts of Brady's death. In one version, Brady wanted to have sex, but he declined because he was involved with someone else. He went to the bathroom and when he came out, he heard a pop and saw Brady lying on the living room floor with a gunshot wound. In the second version, he and Brady were having sex on the couch when the gun in his ankle holster discharged. In Wright’s final version, he was sitting on the floor in the living room taking his shoes off when he removed the gun from his ankle holster and he saw that the gun was cocked. He attempted to lower the hammer, but the gun accidentally discharged. Brady, who was standing in the kitchen behind him, was struck by the bullet. Wright elected not to testify at trial, but he called three witnesses who testified that he had a reputation for peacefulness, honesty, and abiding by the law.

Wright was convicted of felony murder. Georgia Supreme Court AFFIRMS. On appeal, Wright argued the trial court erred in its instruction on good character evidence because it failed to inform the jury that good character is a substantive fact that in and of itself may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt and lead to an acquittal.

The trial court instructed the jury as follows, substantially tracking the current pattern instruction:

• “You have heard the evidence of the character of the defendant for particular traits, more specifically, honesty, peacefulness, and being law-abiding in an effort to show the defendant likely acted in keeping with such character or trait at pertinent times or with reference to issues in this case. This evidence has been offered in the form of opinions of other witnesses and their testimony as to the defendant's reputation. You shall consider any such evidence, along with all the other - other evidence in deciding whether or not you have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendant.”

Georgia Supreme Court applied the plain error analysis because Wright did not object at trial. The Court has previously rejected the contention that omitting the “substantive fact” language renders the good-character instruction inadequate. Nor could Wright establish that the alleged error was clear and beyond reasonable dispute. Accordingly, Wright’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the charge also failed. And the evidence was sufficient to support conviction.