In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : No v e m

b e r 3 , 2 0 1 4

S 1 4 A1 1 7 9 . DAVIS v . THE S TATE.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

Tre m a in S tu a rt Da v is w a s trie d b y a Gwin n e tt Co u n ty ju ry a n d c o n v ic te d

o f m u rd e r a n d a n ag g r av a te d a ssa u lt. Da v is a p p e a ls, c o nte n d in g th a t h e is

e n title d to a n e w tr i a l a t wh ic h h e c a n p re se n t e v id e n c e th a t h is a lle g e d

a c c o m p lic e — wh o w a s trie d se p a ra te ly a n d a fte r Da vis

— wa s a c q u itte d o f th e

m u rd e r. Da v is a lso c la im s th a t h e w a s d e n ie d th e e ffe c tiv e a ssista nc e o f c o u n se l

wh e n his la wy e r fa ile d to in sist u p o n a m o re sp e c ific a n swe r to a ju ry q u e stio n

.

Up o n o ur re v ie w o f th e re c o rd a n d b rie fs, w e fin d n o m e rit in th e se c o n te n tio n s,

a n d we a ffirm

. 1

1 T h e crim es were com m itted on June 4, 2010. Davis and co-def endant Arm and

Babbitt were indicted on Septem ber 9, 2010, and each was charged w ith two c ounts of f elony

m urder, two counts of a ggravated assault, and one count o f arm ed robbery

, possession o f a f irearm b y a convicted f

elon, and possession of a f irearm during the c o m m ission of a f elony

. D a v i s was t ried alone, beginning on Septem ber 24, 2012. The j ury r eturned its v e r d i c t o n O c tober 5, 2012, f

inding Davis g uilty on one count of f elony m u rder and both counts o f

a ggravated assault, and f

inding him not guilty on the other count of f elony m urder, arm ed robbery

, and possession of a f i rearm during the c om m ission of a f elony

. T h e c h a r g e of possession of a f

irearm by a convicted f

elon was dism issed by nolle prosequi. On Decem ber1

. Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra ble to th e v e rd ic t, th e e v id e nc e sh o w s

th a t F e lip e Brito w a s in v o lv e d in th e d istrib u tio n o f c o c a in e , a n d h e a rra n g e d to

se ll so m e c o c a in e on Ju n e 4

, 2 0 1 0

. Be c a u se Brito sp o ke little E n g lish

, h e a sk e d

Mig u e l Ba

u tista to a ssist h im a s a tra nsla to r. O n th e a fte rn oo n o f Ju n e 4

, Da v is,

Arm a n d Ba

b b itt, a n d a m a n k no wn a s “ Om ar” a rriv e d in a Do d ge Ch a rg e r a t th e

a p a rtm e nt c o m

ple x in wh ic h Brito liv e d

. O m a r wa s d riv in g, Ba b b itt wa s se a te d

in th e fro n t a s a p a sse ng e r, a n d Da v is w a s se a te d in th e ba c k

. Wh e n th e y a rriv e d

a t th e c o m

p le x , Brito e x ite d h is a

p a rtm e n t a n d j o i n e d t h e th re e m e n in th e

Ch a rg e r, sittin g in th e ba c k with Da v is. Brito th e n c a lle d fo r B a u tist a t o b r i n g

a p a c k a g e to th e c a r. Ba

u tista d id so , an d a fte r he ha n d e d th e p a c ka g e th ro u g h

th e win d o w o f th e c a r, Br ito a n d Da v is to ld B a u tista to jo in th e m in th e c a r.

Wh e n B a u tista e n te re d th e c a r, h o we v e r, Da v is p u sh e d Ba utista a n d to o k a

h a n d g u n fro m h im

. A t t h at p o in t, Da v is, Ba b bitt, a n d Om a r a ll d isp la y e d

h a n d g u n s, a n d th e y be g a n to th re a te n B a u t i s t a a n d Brito

. Ba

utista p an ic k e d

,

5, 2012, Davis was sentenced to im prisonm ent f

or lif e f or t he f elony m urder and a c oncurrent

term of im

prisonm ent f

or twenty y ears f

or a ggravated assault (Davis was sentenced on only

one count of aggravated a ssault, and the o ther count m erged with the f elony m urder). Davis

tim ely f iled a m otion f

or n e w trial on Decem

ber 12, 2012, he am ended i t on March 27, 2013,

and h e am ended it again on January 21, 2014. The trial c ourt denied his m otion on January 27, 2 014

, and Davis tim ely f iled a notice of appeal on February 14, 2 014. The case was docketed in this Court f

or the April 2014 term

and subm itted f

or decision on the brief

s.

2p u sh e d Brito fro m th e c a r, a n d e x ite d th e c ar h im se lf. Da v is a n d o n e o f th e m e n

in th e fro nt se a t o f t h e C h a rg e r th e n b e g an to fire th e ir g u n s. Wh e n Brito ’s

b ro th e r e me rg e d with h is o wn g u n fro m th e a pa rtm e n t a n d re tu rn e d fire a t th e

C h ar g e r, Da vis, Ba

b b itt, a n d Om a r d ro v e a wa y

. In th e c ou rse o f th e sh o o t i n g ,

Brito su sta in e d th re e g u n sh o t wo u n d s, a t le a st o n e o f wh ic h wa s fa ta l. Ba u tista

su sta in e d a sin gle g u n sh o t wo u n d

, b u t h e su rv iv e d

. Da v is wa s wo u n d e d a s we ll.

At h is tria l, D a v is te stifie d a n d a d m itte d h is pre se n c e a t th e sc e n e a n d h is

in v o lv e m e n t in th e dru g d e a l. Da v is c la im e d

, h owe v e r, th a t h e le ft th e Ch a rg e r

(to re lie v e h im se lf be hin d th e a p a rtm e n t) b e fo re th e g u n fire b e ga n , th a t h e wa s

sh o t a s h e ra n b a c k to th e Ch a rg e r, a n d th a t h e ne v e r h a d a g u n o n th e d a y o f th e

sh o o tin g s. Da v is a lso sa id th a t h e did n o t k n o w th a t B a b b itt an d Om a r we re

a rm e d

.

Da v is d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t th e e v id e n c e is su ffic ie n t to su sta in h is

c o n v ic tio n s, b u t c o nsiste n t with o u r u su a l p ra c t i c e in m u rd e r c a se s, w e h a v e

in d e pe n d e n tly re v ie we d th e re c o rd t o a sse ss th e le g a l su ffic ie n c y o f th e

e v id e n c e

. As w e h a v e e x p la in e d o n ma n y o cc a sio n s, “ we m u st v ie w th e

e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o r a b l e t o th e v e rd ic t a n d le a v e qu e stio n s o f

c re d ib ility a n d th e re so lu tio n o f c o n flic ts in th e e v id e n c e to th e ju ry .” Bra dle y

3v

. S ta te

, 2 9 2 Ga

. 6 0 7

, 6 0 9 (1 ) (a ) (7 4 0 S E 2 d 1 0 0 ) (2 0 1 3 ). S o v ie we d

, we

c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t tria l wa s le g a lly su ffic ie n t to a u th o riz e a

ra tio n a l trie r o f fa c t to fin d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t Da v is wa s g u ilty o f

th e c rim e s o f w h ic h h e wa s c o n v ic te d

. Ja c k so n v

. V irg in ia

, 4 4 3 U

. S. 3 0 7

, 3 1 9

(III) (B) (9 9 S Ct 2 7 81

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9).

2

. Da vis a n d Ba

b b itt we re in d ic te d to g e th e r fo r th e mu r d e r o f B rito

, b u t

th e y we r e t r ie d se p a ra te ly

. Afte r Da v is wa s c o nv ic te d

, Ba bb itt wa s trie d b y

a n o th e r Gwin n e tt C o u n t y j u r y a n d a c q u itte d o f th e m u rd e r. Citin g Wh ite v

.

S ta te

, 2 5 7 Ga

. 2 3 6 (3 5 6 SE2 d 8 7 5) (1 9 8 7), Da v is c o n te n d s th a t h e is e ntitle d to

a n e w tria l a t wh ic h h e c a n p re se n t e v id e nc e o f Ba b bitt’s a c q u itta l. We disa g re e

.

In Wh ite

, th is Co u rt h e ld th a t on e c h a rg e d d istin c tly a s a n a c c e sso ry to a

c rim e m a y b e e n title d u n d e r G e o rg ia la w to p re se nt e v id e n c e o f th e a c q u itta l o f

a n o th e r c h a rg e d d istin c tly a s th e p rin c ip a l. 2 2 57 G a

. a t 2 3 6

. T h e Co u rt re a so n e d

th a t su c h e v id e nc e is re le va n t in th e tria l o f th e a c c e sso ry b e c a use

p ro o f o f th e gu ilt o f th e p rin c ip a l is a n e c e ssa ry e le m e n t in th e c rim e

o f o n e w h o d o e s no t dire c tly c o m m it th e c rim e b ut is c h a rg e d a s a n

a id e r, a be tto r, e n c o u ra ge r o r c o u n se lo r in th e c o m m issio n o f th e

2 In W hite, the def

endant was charged d istinctly with “aiding, abetting, encouraging and counseling the com m ission of the crim e” by

another. 257 Ga. at 236.

4c rim e

. Th e a c q u itt a l o f th e p rin c ip a l is so m e e v id e n c e [th a t th e

a c c e sso ry ] d id n o t a id [o r] a b e t [th e c rim e o f w h i c h t h e p rin c ip a l

wa s a c q u itte d ]

.

Id

. Ev e n a ssu m in g th a t Wh ite wa s c o rre c tly d e c id e d

, it is distin g u ish a b le fro m

th is c a se

. 3

Un lik e Wh ite

, it wa s n o t e sse n tia l in th e c a se a g a in st Da v is fo r th e S ta te

to p ro v e th a t B a

b b itt a lso wa s g u ilty

. In th e in d ic tm e nt, Da v is w a s n ot c h a rg e d

d istin c tly a s h a v in g a id e d o r a b e tte d Ba b b itt in th e c o m

m issio n o f th e m

u rd e r.

To th e c o n tra ry , D a vis (lik e Ba b b itt) sim p ly wa s c h a rg e d w ith m

u rd e r, a n d th a t

c h a rg e p e rm itte d th e S ta te to m a k e o u t its c a se a g a in st Da v is with p ro o f b e y o n d

a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t h e wa s a p a rty to th a t c rim e in a n y wa y , se e Brin so n v

.

S ta te

, 26 1 Ga

. 8 8 4

, 8 8 4 (1 ) (4 1 3 S E2 d 4 4 3 ) (1 99 2 ); se e a lso B u tle r v

. S ta te

, 2 7 3

3 Noting t hat the great w eight of authority would exclude the acquittal o f the principal

at t he trial of an accessory , Justice Hunt
— joined by Justice W eltner

— dissented in W hite.

See 257 Ga. at 237 (Hunt

, J

. , dissenting) (collecting cases). The position that Justice Hunt

staked out in his dissent appears to accurately ref lect the general rule in Am erican law. See

23 CJS Crim inal Law § 1336 ( “ Evidence of acquittal of one jointly indicted with the accused

is not adm issible on behalf of the accused as tending to establish that he or she is also innocent.”) (citation om itted). See also State v. W e a ver , 8 73 S2d 909, 915-916 ( La. App. 2004); State v. Scott, 6 19 NW 2d 371, 374-375 (III) (Iowa 2000); Com m onwealth v. Howard,

706 NE2d 303, 3 06 (2) (Mass. App. 1999); Miller v

. State, 650 S 2d 940, 9 45-946 (VI) (Ala.

Crim

. A pp. 19 9 3), rev’d on other grounds, Ex p arte Miller, 650 S2d 947 (Ala. 1994). Nevertheless, because W hite i s distinguishable, we have no o c c a s ion in this case to reconsider its holding.

5Ga

. 3 8 0

, 3 8 4 (9 ) (5 4 1 S E2 d 6 53 ) (2 0 0 1 ), 4 wh e th e r a s th e p rin c ip a l, a n a c c e sso ry

to Ba b bitt, o r a n a c c e sso ry to a n o th e r n o t e v e n n a m e d in th e in d ic tm e nt ( s u c h

a s Om a r). Se e g e n e ra lly O CGA § 1 6-2 -2 0 (id e n tify in g th e se v e ra l wa y s in wh ic h

o n e m a y b e a p a rty to a c rim e ). 5 Th e e v id e n c e p re se n te d a t th e tria l o f D a v is wa s

le g a lly su ffic ie nt to p ro v e h is g u ilt a s a p a rty to th e c rim e in any o f th e se wa y s,

a n d so , th e c a se a g a in st Da v is fo r m u rd e r d id n o t de p e n d n e c e ssa rily up on p ro o f

th a t Ba b bitt c o m m itte d th e m

u rd e r.

Da v is in sists th a t th e ju ry m u st h a v e c o n v ic te d h im on ly a s a n a c c e sso ry ,

n o tin g th a t h e w a s a c q u itte d o f th e u n la wfu l p o sse ssio n o f a fire a rm d urin g th e

c o m m issio n o f a c rim e , a n d no tin g a s we ll th a t, in th e c o u rse o f its d e lib e ra tio n s,

4 It is now w ell-settled that the State i s not required t o s p ecif y in the indictm ent, as it

did in W h i te, 2 57 Ga. at 236, whether the def endant is alleged to be a principal or a ccessory

. See W hite v. State, 289 Ga. 5 11, 513 (2) (712 S E2d 834) (2011); Jennings v. State, 288 Ga. 120, 121 (2) (702 SE2d 151 (2010).

5 OCGA § 16-2-20 provides: (a) Every person concerned in the com m ission of a crim e is a party thereto and

m ay be charged with and convicted of com m i ssion of

the crim e. (b) A person is concerned in the com m ission of a crim e only

if he: (1) Directly

com m its the crim e; (2) Intentionally causes som e o ther person t o com m it the crim e under such c ircum stances t hat the other person is n ot g uilty of

any crim e either in f

act or because of

legal incapacity ; (3) I ntentionally a ids or abets in the com m ission o f the crim e; or (4) Intentiona l l y advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to com m it the crim e.

6th e ju ry a sk e d wh e th e r Da v is c ou ld b e a p a r ty to th e m u rd e r e v e n if h e we re

u n a rm e d

. 6 As fo r th e a c q u itta l o n th e fire arm c h arg e , h o we v e r, it sh o ws n o th in g

o f c o nse q u e n c e , in a sm

u c h a s th is Co urt will n o t sp e c u la t e a b o u t w h y a ju ry

m ig h t h a v e a c q u itte d a de fe n d a n t o f o n e c rim e a n d c o n v ic te d h im of an o th e r,

e v e n wh e n th e v e rd ic ts se e m in c o n siste n t. S e e Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 2 8 3 G a

. 1 7

, 2 0

(2 ) (6 5 5 S E2 d 5 8 9 ) (2 0 0 8 ). As fo r th e ju ry q u e stio n , e v e n i f i t sh o ws th a t th e

ju ry , in fa c t, b e lie v e d Da v is wa s a p a rty t o t h e m u rd e r o nly a s a n a c c e sso ry , it

d o e s no t sh o w th a t his g u ilt d e p e n d e d o n B a b bitt’s

. F o r a ll we k n o w , t h e ju ry

th a t fo u n d Da v is g u ilty m ig h t h a v e th ou g h t th a t Om a r wa s th e p rin c ip a l in th e

k illin g o f Brito

, a n d it m ig h t h a v e fo u n d th a t Da v is wa s a n a c c e sso ry to Om a r.

If th a t is, in fa c t, wh a t th e ju ry c o n c lu d e d, t h a t Ba b b itt wa s fa c tu a lly in n o c e n t

o f th e m u rd e r — e ve n a ssu m i n g , a s th is Co u rt d id in Wh ite

, th a t Ba b b itt’s

su b se q u e n t a c q u itta l in a no th e r tria l is e v id e n c e o f h is f a ct u a l i n n o c e n c e

—

wo u ld b e in c o n se qu e ntia l to th e g u ilt o f Da v is.

6 The jury asked this question:

W e need clarif

ication on the f

ollowing: W h en the c harge reads that the a ssault

was perf orm e d w ith a handgun, does it m ean that the def e ndant Trem a i n Stuart

Davis had to be t he actual p erson wielding the gun? In other words, could we render a guilty v erdict on t he assault charges f or t he d e f e n d a n t i f we b elieve

he him self was unarm ed? This would correspond to t he notion of parties to a crim e.

7By its o w n te rm s, Wh ite c o n c e rn s p ro se c u tio n s in w h ic h a d e fe n d a n t is

c h a rg e d d istin c tly a

n d e x c lu siv e ly a s a n a c c e sso ry to a n id e n tifie d p rin c ip a l, su c h

th a t th e th e o ry o f liability a sse rte d b y th e S ta te n e c e ssa rily m a k es th e fa c tu a l

g u ilt o f th e id e n tifie d p r i n c ip a l a n e sse n tia l p a rt of th e c a se a g a in st th e

a c c e sso ry

. Th a t is n ot ho w D a v is wa s c h a rg e d o r trie d

. Th a t Ba bb itt wa s g u ilty

o f m urd e r a s a prin c ip a l wa s no t a n e sse n tia l e le m e n t o f th e c a se a g a in st Da v is,

a n d Da vis is n o t e n title d u n d e r Wh ite to a n e w tria l a t wh ic h h e c an p re se n t

e v id e n c e th a t Ba

b bitt wa s a c q u itte d o f th e m u rd e r. S e e Ha rriso n v

. S t a te

, 2 5 7

Ga

. 5 2 8

, 5 3 1 (3 ) (3 6 1 S E2 d 1 49 ) (1 98 7) (d istin g u i s h in g Wh ite o n sim ila r

g ro u n d s).

3

. D a v is a lso c o n te n d s th a t h is tria l la wy e r wa s in e ffe c tiv e b e c a u se h e

fa ile d to in sist th a t th e tria l c o u rt fu lly re c h a rg e th e ju ry o n p a rtie s to a c rim e in

re sp o n se to th e q u e stio n a b o u t wh e th e r Da v is c o uld b e c o nv ic te d a s a p a rty to

th e m u rd e r e ve n if he we re u n a r me d

. T o pre v a il on a c la im o f in e ffe c tiv e

a ssista n c e , Da vis m

u st p ro v e b o th t h a t th e pe rfo rm a n c e o f his la wy e r wa s

d e fic ie n t a n d th a t he w a s p re ju d ic e d b y t h is d e fic ie n t p e rfo rm a n c e

. S tric k la n d

v . Wa sh in g to n, 4 6 6 U. S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (III) (1 0 4 S Ct 2 0 52

, 8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ).

To p ro v e th a t th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f h is la wy e r wa s d e fic ie nt, D a v is m u st sh o w th a t

8th e la wy e r pe rfo rm e d h is d u t i e s a t tria l in a n o b je c tiv e ly u n re a so n a

ble wa y ,

c o n sid e rin g a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s, a n d in th e lig h t o f p r e v a ilin g p ro fe ssio n a l

n o rm s. Id

. a t 6 87 -6 8 8 (III) (A). S e e a lso Kim m e lm a n v

. M o r r i s o n , 4 7 7 U. S

.

3 6 5

, 3 8 1 (II) (C) (1 0 6 S Ct 2 57 4

, 9 1 LE2 d 3 0 5 ) (1 98 6 ). An d to p ro v e th a t h e wa s

p re ju d ic e d b y th e p e rfo rm a

n c e o f his la wy e r, Da v is mu s t s h o w “ a re a so n a b le

p ro b a b ility th a t, b u t fo r c o u n se l’s u n p ro fe ssio n a l e r r o rs, th e re su lt o f th e

p ro c e e d in g wo u ld h a ve b e e n diffe re n t. A re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility is a p ro b a

b ility

su ffic ie n t to u n d e rm in e c o n fid e nc e in th e ou tc o m e .” S tric k la n d, 4 66 U

. S. a t 6 9 4

(III) (B). S e e a lso Willia m s v . Ta y lo r, 5 2 9 U. S

. 3 6 2, 3 91 (III) (1 20 S Ct 1 4 9 5

,

1 4 6 L E2 d 3 8 9 ) (2 0 0 0 ). T h is bu rd e n is a h e a v y o n e , se e K im m e lm a n , 4 7 7 U. S

.

a t 3 8 2 (II) (C), a n d Da vis fa lls fa r sh o rt o f c a rry in g it.

In re sp o n se to th e ju ry q u e stio n a b o u t p artie s to a c rim e , th e tria l c o urt

sim p ly in stru c te d th e ju ry t o c o n s i d e r a s a w h o le a ll o f th e c h a rg e s p re v io u sly

g iv e n, an a

p p ro a c h to wh ic h d e fe nse c o u n se l a g re e d

. La te r, a t th e h e a rin g o n th e

m o tio n fo r n e w tria l, d e fe nse c o u n se l e x p la in e d h is r e a so n s fo r n o t a sk in g fo r

a re c h a rg e

. A c o n c ise

, dire c t, a n d a c c u ra te a n swe r to th e q ue stio n p o se d b y th e

ju ry — th a t, y e s , Da v i s c ou ld b e c on vic te d a s a p a rty to th e c rim e e v e n if h e

we re u n a rm e d

— wo u l d a mo u n t to a n im p ro p e r c o m m e n t o n th e e vid e n c e ,

9c o u n se l c o n c lu d e d , a nd in a n y e v e n t wo u ld n o t b e h e lp fu l to Da v is. Sim ila rly

,

a re c h arg e o nly o n p a rtie s to a c rim e wo u ld o nly e m ph a siz e th e se v e ra l wa y s in

wh ic h Da v is c o u l d b e h e ld re sp on sib le fo r th e c rim e s with wh ic h h e wa s

c h a rg e d

, a n d in t h e e x p e rie n c e o f c o u n se l, su c h a c h arg e u su a lly is h a rm fu l to

th e a c c u se d

. T o a v o id su c h u n d u e e m p h a sis, c o u n s e l re a so n e d, it wo u ld b e

n e c e ssa ry to re c h a rg e t h e j u ry o n se v e ra l a d d itio n a l m a tte rs a s we ll, in c lu d in g

m e re p re se n c e a n d a sso c ia tio n. An d in a ny e v e n t, a fte r th e tria l c o u rt c h a rg e d th e

ju ry ora lly a t th e c on c lu sio n o f th e tria l, th e tria l c o u rt h a d g iv e n th e ju ry a

writte n c o p y of th e c o mp l ete c h a rg e

. F o r th a t re a so n , re c h arg in g th e ju ry o n

p a rtie s to a c rim e a n d re la te d m a tte rs wo u ld o n ly in v o lv e a n o th e r re a d in g o f

in stru c tio n s th a t th e ju ry a lre a d y h a d

, a nd c o u n se l sa w little to b e g a in e d b y su c h

a re c h arg e

. A s su c h

, c ou n se l th o u gh t it b e tte r fo r th e c o u rt sim p ly to re fe r th e

ju ry to th e c ha rg e s p re vio u sly g iv e n

.

“ De c isio n s a s to wh ic h ju ry c h arg e s will b e re qu e ste d a n d wh e n th e y will

b e re q u e ste d fa ll with in th e re a lm o f tria l ta c tic s a n d stra te g y

. Th e y p ro v id e n o

g ro u n d s fo r re v e rsa l u n le ss su c h ta c tic a l d e c isio n s a re so p a te n tly u nre a so n a b le

th a t n o c o m

p e te n t a tto rn e y wo u ld ha v e c ho se n th e m .” Ca n tu v

. S ta te

, 3 0 4 Ga

.

Ap p

. 6 55

, 6 5 9 (2 ) (b ) (6 97 S E2 d 3 1 0 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d )

1 0(fa ilu re to re q u e st re c h a rg e in re sp o n se to ju ry qu e st i o n w a s n o t in e ffe c tiv e ).

He re , we c a n n o t sa y th a t th e wo rrie s o f c o u n se l we re u n re a so n a b le on e s, a n d we

lik e w ise c a n n o t sa y th a t th e stra te g y e m p lo y e d b y c o u n se l

— to a gre e to th e tria l

c o u rt sim p ly re fe rrin g th e ju ry to th e wh o le of th e c ha rg e s p re v io u sly g iv e n

—

wa s u n re a so n a b l e

. Mo re o v e r, sin c e th e ju ry h a d a writte n c o p y o f th e ju ry

in stru c tio n s, we fa il to se e h o w Da v is c o u ld ha v e b e e n p re j u d ic e d in th is c a se

b y th e fa ilu re o f th e tria l c ou rt to re a d o n e o r m o re o f th e se c ha rg e s a g a in

. Da v is

h a s fa ile d to sh o w th at h e w a s d e n ie d th e e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e o f c o u nse l. S e e

La k e v

. Sta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 5 6

, 5 8 (4 ) (7 43 S E2 d 4 1 4 ) (2 0 1 3); Ca n tu

, 30 4 Ga

. Ap p

.

a t 6 59 (2 ) ( b ) ; S k a g g s-F e rre ll v

. S ta te

, 2 8 7 Ga

. Ap p

. 8 7 2

, 8 78 (3 ) (6 52 S E2 d

8 9 1 ) (2 00 7 ).

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

1 1