Bundel v. State

Rosano Wensly Bundel was convicted by a Cobb County jury of malice murder and a related firearm charge after he shot and killed George Tabetando in a Cumberland Mall parking lot following a botched scam attempt. Bundel claimed self-defense, saying Tabetando pulled a gun on him first, but witnesses said Tabetando was unarmed and running away when Bundel shot him multiple times. On appeal, Bundel argued the evidence was too weak to support his conviction and that the trial court should have held a hearing before denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court of Georgia found the evidence was legally sufficient for a jury to convict him and ruled that because Bundel never clearly asked for a hearing on his motion, the trial court did not have to hold one. The court affirmed his convictions.

The evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find Bundel guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and because his motion for new trial relied only on the general grounds and he never unambiguously requested a hearing, the trial court was not required to hold one before ruling.

The ruling clarifies that Georgia trial courts do not have to schedule hearings on new trial motions unless a defendant clearly asks for one, which matters for defendants, defense lawyers, and courts managing long-delayed post-conviction motions statewide.

Affirmed

1. The court explained that when a defendant raises the 'general grounds' for a new trial, a claim that the verdict went against the weight of the evidence or basic fairness, an appellate court cannot review that decision itself; only the trial court can weigh the evidence that way.
2. Instead, the Supreme Court of Georgia applies the Jackson v. Virginia standard, which asks only whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was enough for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Applying that standard, the court found multiple witnesses saw Bundel shoot Tabetando, chase him, and shoot him again while he was unarmed and fleeing, which was enough evidence to support the conviction even though Bundel testified he acted in self-defense.
4. On the hearing issue, the court noted that a defendant has a right to a hearing on a new trial motion only if he affirmatively requests one, and failing to make that request waives the right.
5. The court concluded that Bundel's request that his motion be 'inquired into' by the trial court was not a clear request for a hearing, and since his motion relied only on the general grounds, which require no new evidence beyond the trial record, no hearing was necessary.

• murder conviction
• sufficiency of the evidence
• motion for new trial
• self-defense claim
• Cobb County