Hines v. The State - Briefs Pro (2024)

Quick Summary

Robert Lee Hines (defendant) accidentally shot and killed Steven Wood (victim) during a turkey hunting trip. Hines, who had a prior felony conviction, was in illegal possession of the shotgun used in the incident.

The dispute centered on whether Hines’s possession of the firearm constituted an inherently dangerous felony supporting a felony murder charge. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Hines’s conviction, concluding that his actions created a foreseeable risk of death.

Facts of the Case

Robert Lee Hines (defendant) engaged in a turkey hunting expedition with friends and family after consuming alcohol. The hunting party divided into two groups, with Hines and one group moving to one location, while Steven Wood (victim), his wife, and Hines’s son ventured to another area. As the evening approached, Hines responded to what he believed was a turkey call by firing his shotgun into dense foliage, tragically striking and killing Wood, who was positioned some 80 feet away.

Following the incident, Hines attempted to persuade others to claim responsibility for the accidental shooting. He also concealed his hunting gear and shotgun before law enforcement arrived. Two days later, Hines admitted to the shooting and directed police to where he had hidden his shotgun and gear. During the investigation, evidence including beer cans linked to Hines was found near the shooting scene.

Procedural Posture and History

1. Hines was convicted of felony murder premised on illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
2. He was acquitted on the count of felony murder based on misuse of a firearm while hunting.
3. Hines appealed the conviction, challenging the legal basis for using a convicted felon’s possession of a firearm to support a felony murder charge.

Issue

Whether the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in this case, Robert Lee Hines, can constitute an inherently dangerous felony sufficient to support a felony murder conviction.

Rule of Law

A felony can be considered inherently dangerous either by its nature or by the circ*mstances under which it is committed if it creates a foreseeable risk of death.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found no merit in Hines’s argument that the jury’s verdict was invalid due to alleged inconsistent factual findings. The Court emphasized that in Georgia, an inconsistent verdict rule is not recognized; hence, the jury’s decision to convict on certain counts while acquitting on others is generally not questioned.

Moreover, the Court determined that under the given circ*mstances—Hines’s prior felony conviction, his use of alcohol, his awareness of other hunters in the vicinity, and his unsafe firing at dusk—the possession of a firearm by Hines did create a foreseeable risk of death. Therefore, his possession of the firearm was deemed an inherently dangerous felony that could support a felony murder conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Hines’s conviction for felony murder based on his illegal possession of a firearm as a convicted felon.

Dissenting Opinions

Presiding Justice Sears dissented, arguing that the circ*mstances surrounding Hines’s possession of the firearm did not carry a high probability of death and were not inherently dangerous enough to justify a felony murder conviction. Justice Sears believed that Hines’s actions were negligent but did not warrant life imprisonment for murder.

Key Takeaways

1. The possession of a firearm by a convicted felon can be an inherently dangerous felony if it creates a foreseeable risk of death.
2. Georgia does not recognize an inconsistent verdict rule; thus, juries can convict on some counts while acquitting on others without their decision being overturned due to alleged inconsistencies.
3. Dissenting opinions may argue that not all negligent actions with fatal outcomes should be equated with inherently dangerous felonies warranting severe punishment like life imprisonment for murder.

Was this case brief helpful?