Barnes v. State

3 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. GONZALES (IVAN)

    Appellant's Reply Brief

    Filed November 19, 2009

    (Barnesv. State, supra, 496 S.E.2d at p. 689.) Like Barnes,the limitations on evidence of appellant’s children wasnotthe only significant defense evidence excludedat the penalty retrial.

  2. PEOPLE v. GONZALES (IVAN)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 22, 2007

    Because the quality of the defense presentation of its mitigating evidence playsa critical role in a jury’s death-sentencing determination,it is reasonably possible that appellant would not have been sentenced to death if the court had not erroneously forbidden appellant from exhibiting his children to the jury and excluded them from court. In Barnes v. State, supra, 496 S.E.2d at pp. 687-689, the Georgia Supreme Court found a similar error to be prejudicial. The defendantin that case sought to admit photographs of his daughter, stepchildren, and nephew to “make morereal and apparentto the jury” that a death sentence would adversely impact the children.

  3. PEOPLE v. GONZALES (IVAN)

    Respondent's Brief

    Filed January 15, 2008

    (AOB 146.) In Barnes v. State (Ga. 1998) 496 S.E.2d 674, 687, the trial court excluded a poem written by the defendant to his wife and photographs of the defendant and his family when he was growing up, his infant, his step-children and his handicapped nephew. The Georgia Supreme Court held the evidence was admissible mitigating evidence and overturned the defendant's death sentence.