Coweta County, GA: Wife appeals murder conviction

BY ALEX MCRAE
THE TIMES-HERALD

Attorneys for Michelle Hall, convicted in September 2009 of malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault in the July 30, 2008, shooting death of her husband, Britt Hall, will appeal Hall's conviction before the Georgia Supreme Court Monday in Atlanta.

Hall's attorneys decided to appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court after Coweta Superior Court Judge Jack Kirby denied Hall's motion for a new trial. Hall is represented by attorneys Scott Key and Michael Kam.

Among those representing the state will be Coweta Judicial Circuit District Attorney Peter Skandalakis and Assistant District Attorney Kevin McMurry.

A release issued by the Supreme Court summarizing the case and proceedings, says according to the evidence at trial, Michelle Hall and her husband got into an argument the evening of July 30, 2008. Michelle's 8-year-old daughter from a previous marriage testified that when she heard a vacuum cleaner slam to the ground, she ran upstairs to her bedroom. From there, she heard her stepfather say "put the gun down" and "Michelle, don't do this."

The child testified she then heard about six gunshots. The first officer on the scene testified that Michelle initially told him her husband had shot himself. She later told another investigator she had shot Britt but "didn't mean to do it."

The medical examiner who performed the autopsy testified that Britt had been shot three times -- in the chest, leg and arm. At trial, her two former husbands testified to Michelle's acts of violence toward them. One said when he forgot to bring home ice from the store, she hit him and tried to kick him in the shin. He described his former wife as "explosive."

Michelle Hall's lawyers argue the trial court was wrong to allow in evidence discussion of alleged batteries she allegedly committed against her two ex-husbands, according to the court summary. One incident occurred 20 years ago, and neither was similar to what she's been accused of here.

There is no evidence Michelle ever killed anyone or has been in an altercation involving a deadly weapon, her lawyers contend.

"The kind of evidence admitted in this case as purported similar transactions evidence demonstrates the true danger of the similar transactions rule if allowed to be run amok in domestic violence cases," her lawyers write in briefs.

"The evidence suggested that Michelle had a history of hitting and kicking spouses and diverted attention from Britt's history of depression, anxiety, stress and his history of abusing Michelle," her lawyers write.

The trial court also erred, they contend, in allowing the daughter's recorded statement of what she heard the night her stepfather died. The attorneys argue that on cross-examination, they were not challenging the child's truthfulness, which was required in order to allow in her statement. Rather they were questioning the girl's interpretation of what she had heard.

Finally, the lawyers argue the trial court was wrong to refuse their request to the judge that he instruct jurors they could also consider whether Michelle was instead guilty of the less serious crime of involuntary manslaughter.

The trial court properly admitted the "similar transaction evidence" of the incidents involving Michelle's two former husbands, the state argues. The court held a hearing before deciding to allow it in for the purposes of showing bent of mind, motive and course of conduct, according to information given to the court by the Coweta District Attorney's Office.

The trial court also properly allowed the state to introduce the child's prior statement, the DA's office argues. It did so only after Michelle's attorneys brought up inconsistent statements the child had made to her teacher, thereby questioning the child's veracity. Finally, the trial court correctly refused to instruct jurors they could consider involuntary manslaughter because "there was no evidence to support such a charge," the state contends.

The Supreme Court will rule on the case no later than the end of July, but a decision could come sooner, according to the court's public information officer, Jane Hansen.