Jacobs v. State

Steven Alford Jacobs was convicted of malice murder and other crimes after being tried for the 2018 shooting death of Curtis Pitts, whose body was found hours after he got into a van in which Jacobs was riding. During the trial, the judge let jurors leave the courtroom to view that van, which was parked behind the courthouse, without Jacobs going along. After his conviction, Jacobs asked for a new trial, arguing the Georgia Constitution gave him the right to be present at that viewing and that he never agreed to skip it. His trial lawyer testified that he told Jacobs he could attend, that Jacobs said no and seemed unsettled by the idea, and that the defense team discussed it with him more than once. The Supreme Court of Georgia found that evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that Jacobs had waived his right to be present, so no new trial was required, and it affirmed his convictions.

A defendant can waive his constitutional right to be present at a critical stage of trial, such as a jury's viewing of physical evidence, through his attorney's testimony that the defendant was informed of the right and declined to exercise it, and a trial court's factual finding of waiver will stand unless clearly erroneous.

The ruling reaffirms that a defendant's right to be present at trial proceedings, including jury viewings of physical evidence, can be waived through conversations with defense counsel even without a formal on-the-record statement, which matters for how Georgia trial courts and defense lawyers document such waivers going forward.

Affirmed

1. The court explained that the Georgia Constitution gives criminal defendants a right to be present at any stage of the proceedings that is critical to the outcome, meaning a stage where rights could be lost or the case's outcome substantially affected.
2. The court noted that this right belongs to the defendant personally and can be waived either by the defendant himself, by his attorney with his express direction, by his attorney in open court while he is present, or by the defendant later acquiescing to his attorney's waiver.
3. Without deciding whether the jury's viewing of the van was actually a critical stage requiring Jacobs's presence, the court assumed it was and instead focused on whether the record supported the trial court's finding that Jacobs waived that right.
4. Because a trial court's factual finding on waiver is reviewed only for clear error, meaning it will be upheld unless clearly mistaken, the court examined the testimony from Jacobs's trial attorneys that they told him about his right to attend and that he declined.
5. The court found that the attorney's specific recollection of Jacobs saying no and appearing unsettled by the idea of viewing the van, along with the judge's on-the-record instructions to the jury about the viewing, supported the trial court's finding that Jacobs knowingly waived his right to be present.
6. The court distinguished an older case, Chance v. State, where a new trial was granted because there was no evidence the defendant had waived his right to attend a similar vehicle viewing, noting that here, unlike in Chance, the record contained testimony showing Jacobs was informed of and waived that right.

• murder conviction
• right to be present
• jury viewing of evidence
• waiver of constitutional rights
• Butts County