FI RST DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, L A N D and WA

TKI NS, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D ecem ber 8, 2023



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 3 A1 62 9 . BREW TON v . THE STATE.

L A N D , J u d g e.

On ap p eal fro m h i s co n v i ct i o n aft er a j u r y tri al fo r ag g rav at ed as sau l t an d

reck l es s co n d u ct ar i s i n g fro m a s ho o t in g o n th e Fl i n t Ri v er, Sam u el Brewt o n III

arg u es t h at t h e ev id en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t, t h at t h e t ri al co urt erred wh en i t ad m i t t ed

ev i d en ce o f p ri o r act s

, an d t h at t ri al co u n s e l was i n effect i v e. W e fi n d n o erro r an d

affi rm

.

“ O n ap p eal fro m a cri m i nal co n vi ct i o n

, we vi ew th e ev id en ce in t he l i g h t m o s t

fav o rab l e to t h e v erd i ct

, w i t h t h e d efen d an t n o l o n g er en jo y i n g a p res u m

p t i o n o f

i n n o cen ce.” (Ci t at i on o m i tt ed .) Rees e v. S t a t e

, 27 0 Ga. Ap p

. 5 2 2

, 5 2 3 (6 0 7 SE2 d 1 6 5 )

(2 0 0 4). W e nei t h er wei g h t h e ev i d en ce n o r ju d g e t he cred i b i l i t y o f wi t n es s es

, b ut

d et erm i n e o n l y wh et her, aft er v i ewi n g t h e ev i den ce in t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h ep ro s ecu ti o n

, “ an y rat i o n al t ri er o f fact co u ld hav e fo u n d t h e es s en t i al el em en t s o f t h e

cri m e bey o n d a reas o nab l e do u b t .” (Em p has i s om i t t ed .) Ja cks o n v. Vi r g in i a

, 4 4 3 U.

S. 3 07 , 3 1 9 (III) (B) (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 60 ) (1 9 7 9).

Th u s v i ewed i n fav or o f th e v erd ict

, t h e reco rd s h o ws t h at i n th e l at e aft ern o o n

o f Ap ri l 1 1

, 20 2 0

, a gran d fat h er an d h i s d au g ht er were fi s hi n g fro m a c a n o e o n a

s ect i on o f t h e Fl in t Ri v er k n o wn as Yel l o w J ack et Sh o a l s

, wi t h t h e dau g h t er’ s

h u s b an d

, h er 1 7

- ye a r-o l d s o n, t h e g ran d fat h er’ s s o n

, an d a fo u r-y ear-o l d g ran d so n

t r a v e l i n g n ear t h em in k ay ak s

. As t h e fam i l y co n t i n u ed t o fi s h i n fro nt o f t h e cab i n

p ro p ert y o wn ed b y Brewt on ’ s f a m i l y

, t h e h u sb an d n o t i ced t h at Brewt o n

, w h o m h e

k n ew, w as s t an d i n g o n t h e b an k fi ri n g a s eri es o f weap o ns “ away fro m th e ri v er,” an d

t h at a co u p l e was al s o p res en t t h ere. As t h e g ran d fat h er an d h i s d au g h t er were

rel eas i n g a fi s h th ey h ad cau g h t

, B r e w t o n f i r e d a lo u d s ho t t h at hi t t he wat er 5 o r 6

feet fro m b ot h t h e dau g h ter an d h er h u sb an d

, s p l as h ed wat er i n t o t h e d au gh t er’ s face,

an d s an k o u t o f s i g h t. As t h e d au g h t er s cream ed i n fear, th e h u s b an d l o o k ed b ack at

t h e Brewt o n p ro p ert y

, wh ere h e s aw Brewt on t urn i n g a n d wal k i n g away fro m t h e

ri ver “ l i ke h e was i n a h u rry ,” h o l d i n g a ri fl e. Th e s o n , wh o was i n a k ay ak wi t h h i s

f o u r

- ye a r

- ol d ch i l d

, t es t i fi ed t hat h e s aw Brewt on

, wh o m h e k new, i n fro nt o f t h e

cab i n an d t h at h e w as fi s hi n g o ut s i d e o f h i s k ay ak wh en h e h eard an “ ex t rem el y l o u d

2g u n s ho t ri n g o u t acro s s t h e ri v er.” Th e s o n t es t ifi ed t h at t h i s ri fl e s h o t was “ d i fferen t ”

fro m t h e earl i er d i s ch arg es , “ i n [h i s ] d i rect i o n ,” an d “ terri fy i n g.”

In a p h o ne cal l t h at ev en in g

, t h e s i s t er-i n -l aw of t h e area’ s g am e ward en cal l ed

Fel i x Co ker, wh o h ad b een d ri n k i ng w i t h Brewt o n o n th e pro p ert y t h a t a f t ern o o n.

W h en th e wo m an as k ed Co k er wh et h er h e an d Brewt o n h ad b een s h o o t i n g at p eo p l e

t h at aft ern o o n

, Co k er res p o n d ed , “ [O] n ly i f t h ey ’ re fi s h i n g .”

Brewt o n was a r r e s t ed an d

, aft er b ei n g ad v i s ed o f h i s ri g h ts

, t o l d t h e

i n v es t i g at o r t h at h e had b een “ s h o o t i n g at t u r t l e s i n t h e ri v er o n a ro ck .” He al s o

s t at ed

, h o wev er, th at “ th ey ’ re s t eal i n g h i s fi s h

, ” t h at “ t h e fi s h b e l o n g [ e d ] t o h i m

b e c a u s e t h e fi sh were o n h is p ro p ert y ,” 1 an d th at “ t h ey ’ re g an gi n g up o n m e

. ”

Brewt o n was ch arg ed wi th ag g rav at ed as s au lt o n t h e g ran d f a t h er, t h e d au gh t er, t h e

1 See, e.g

., P a r k

e r v. Du r h a m

, 2 5 8 Ga. 14 0

, 1 4 1 (3 6 5 SE2 d 4 11 ) (1 9 8 8 ) (a

ri pari an o wn er wh o s e ch ai n o f t i t l e i s t raceab l e t o a g ran t fro m t h e St at e b efo re 1 8 6 3,

wh en t h e p red eces s o r t o OCGA § 4 4 -8 -5 was ad o p ted

, h as “ s o l e an d ex cl u s i v e” ri g h t s

o f fi s h ery ex t en d i n g t o “ th e t h read o f t h e s t ream ”), su p ers ed ed b y O CGA § 4 4 -8 -5 (c)

(Laws 2 0 2 3, Act 92

, § 1

, effect i v e J u l y 1

, 2 0 2 3 ) (i n cl u d i n g t h e Gen eral As sem b l y ’ s

fi nd i ng s th at “ t h e s tat e p ro cu red o wn ers h ip o f al l n av i g ab l e s t re a m b e d s wi t h i n i t s

ju ri s d i ct i o n u p o n s t at eh o o d an d, as s o verei gn

, i s t ru s tee o f i t s p eo pl es ’ ri g ht s t o u s e

an d en j o y al l n av i g ab l e s tream s c a p a b l e o f u s e fo r fi s h i ng

, h u n t i n g

, p as s ag e,

n av ig at i o n

, co m

m erce, an d t ran s p o rt at i o n

, p u rs u an t t o t h e co m m o n l aw pu b l i c t ru s t

d o ct ri n e”; t h at “ [t ] h e s t at e co n t i n u es t o h o l d t i t le to al l s u ch st ream b ed s

, ex cep t

wh ere ti t l e i n a p ri v at e p art y ori g i n at es fro m a v al i d Cro wn o r s t at e g ran t b e f o re

1 8 6 3 ”; an d t h at “ t h e p u b l ic ret ai n ed t h e afo rem en t i o ned ri g h t s un d er s u ch d o ct ri n e

ev en w h ere p ri v at e t i t l e t o b ed s o ri g i n at es fro m a v al i d g ran t”).

3d au gh t er’ s h u s b an d

, an d t h at co u p le’ s s o n

, as wel l as reck l es s co n d u ct as t o t h e so n

an d t h e y o u n g er g ran d so n

.

In Ap ri l 2 0 21

, t h e St at e fi l ed a n o t i ce o f i t s i n ten t t o p res en t ev id en ce o f o t h er

act s u nd er OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 4 (b ). Th i s ev i d en ce i n cl u d ed (a) a Feb ru ary 2 0 2 0

Faceb o ok vi d eo i n wh ich Brewt o n an d Co k er ex p res s ed t h e i r i n t en t t o t rack d o wn

d eer p o ach ers i n t h e area, wi t h Brewt o n st at in g t h at h e was al w ay s arm ed wi t h a

Ru g er m i l i t ary r i f

l e

, a n d s h o wi n g h i m d i s ch arg i ng a cl i p fro m t h e weap o n i n t o t h e

wo o d s ; (b ) a Feb ru ary 2 0 17 p h o n e cal l i n wh i c h Brewt o n s tat ed t h at h e was i n fear

o f h is l i fe, h ad s een p eo p l e acro s s t h e p o n d fro m h i s h o u s e, an d h ad s ho t at th em ; (c)

a 2 0 0 4 m i s d em ean o r g ui lt y p lea fo r s i m p le as s au l t

, t res p as s an d reck l es s co n d u ct

ari s in g fro m a Decem

b er 2 0 0 2 in ci d en t d u ri n g wh i ch Brewt o n had fi red 2 0 sh o t s i n to

a n ei g h b o r ’s s t e reo i n t h e n ei gh b o r’ s p res en ce; (d ) a J an u ary 2 0 0 4 g u i l ty p l ea to

s i m p l e as s au l t an d s i gn i n g a fal s e n am e ari s i n g fro m Brewt o n ’ s at t em

p t t o ru n o v er

d ep ut i e s i n v es t i g at in g a b urn o n h i s an d t h e sam e n ei g h b o r’ s p ro p ert y

, aft er wh i ch

Brewt o n ad v an ced o n t he d ep u t i es wi t h a ri fl e i n h i s h an d ; an d (e) a 2 0 0 3

co n vers at i on i n w h ich Brewt on t o l d t h e g ran d fat h er v i ct i m

, wh o h ad b een a cu s t o m er

at t h e p harm acy wh ere Brewt o n wo rk ed

, t h at h e was u p s et en ou g h ab o u t t res p as s ers

o r p o ach ers o n h is pro p ert y t o d i s c h arg e a l arg e m ag azi n e o f am m u n it i o n i n t h e

4d i rect i o n o f a fl as h l i g h t h e saw i n t h e wo o d s aro un d h i s ho u s e. T h e St at e arg u ed at

t h e h eari n g o n t h e s u bject t h at al l fi v e i n ci d en t s were re l e v an t t o p ro v e i d en t i t y

,

i n t en t

, an d ab sen ce o f m i s t ak e. Al t ho u g h t h e t ri al co u rt ex cl u d ed s o m e p ro ffered

ev i d en ce as n o t p ro b at i v e, t h e t ri al co u rt ad m i t ted t h e ev id en ce o u t l i n ed ab o v e as

rel ev an t an d m o re p ro bat i v e t h an u n d u l y p reju di ci al t o p ro v e i n ten t

.

Aft er a ju ry fo u n d h i m g ui l t y o n al l co u n ts

, Brewt on was co n v ict ed

, s en t en ced

t o 4 0 y ears wi t h 1 0 t o s erv e an d b an i s h ed fro m th e Gri ffi n J u d i ci al Ci rcu i t (i n cl u d i n g

Up s on Co u n t y ) fo r t h e d u rat i on o f h i s s en t en ce. Hi s m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al was d en i ed

.

1

. Al t h o u g h Brewt o n arg u es t h at t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t , i t w as fo r t h e

ju ry t o d et erm i ne w h et h er h e fi red t h e ri fl e s h o t wi t h t h e req u is it e i n t en t o f p u t t i n g t h e

f i rs t fo u r v i ct i m s i n reas o n ab l e ap p reh en s i o n of s u fferi n g an im m ed i at e v i o l en t i n

j u ry

.

See OCGA § § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (a) (1 ), 1 6 -5 -2 1 (a) (d efi n i ng as s au l t

, an d ag g rav at ed as s au l t

as as s au l t wi t h a dead l y w eap o n ). Li k e wi s e

, i t was fo r t h e ju ry t o d eci d e wh et h er

Brewt o n en dan g ered th e fi ft h an d s i x t h vi ct i m s by “ co n s ci o us l y d is reg ard i n g a

s u b s t an t i al an d u nju st i fi ab l e ri s k ” t h at s h o o t i n g t o ward s t h em w o u ld en d an g er t h ei r

s afet y

, co n s t i t u t i n g “ a g ro s s d ev i at io n fro m t h e s t an dard o f care w h i ch a reas o n ab l e

p ers o n wo u l d ex erci se i n t h e s i t u at i o n .” O CGA § 1 6 -5 -6 0 (b ). Th e ev i den ce o u t l i n ed

ab o ve was s u ffi ci en t to s u st ai n Brewt o n ’ s co n v i ct io n fo r b o t h ag g rav at ed as s au l t an d

5reck l es s co n d u ct

. See Cr a ft v. St a t e

, 3 0 9 Ga. A p p

. 6 9 8, 7 0 0 -7 01 (2 ) (7 1 0 SE2 d 8 9 1 )

(2 0 1 1) (ev i d en ce th at a b u l l et cam e t h ro u g h a n ap art m en t res id en t ’ s w i n d o w wh i l e

s h e was s i t ti n g o n t h e fl oo r, wh ere s h e s t ay ed fo r t en m i n ut es aft erward

, au t h o ri zed

a co n v i ct i o n fo r ag g rav at ed as sau l t ); Bo wer s v. S t a t e , 1 77 Ga. A p p

. 3 6

, 3 8 (2 ) (3 3 8

SE2 d 4 5 7) (1 98 5 ) (ev i d en ce au t h o ri zed a ch arg e o n reck l e s s co n d u ct as a l es s er

i n cl u d ed o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t wh en a ju ry co u l d h av e bel i ev ed ei t her t h at t h e

d efen d an t in ten d ed t o s h o o t t h e v i ct i m o n a sai l bo at an ch o red i n a ri v er o r t h at

d efen d an t was n o t aware o f th e p res en ce o f t h e v i ct i m b u t w a s m erel y co n d u ct i n g

t arg et p ract i ce); Ja cks o n , s u p ra.

2

. Brewt o n al s o arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co urt e r r e d w h en i t au th o ri zed t h e

ad m i s s io n o f t h e fi v e in st an ces o f o t h er-act s ev id en ce co n cern i n g h is pen ch an t fo r

b ran d i s h i n g an d / o r d i s ch arg i n g fi rearm s d u ri n g p ercei v ed o r act u a l di s p u t es wi th

n ei g h b o rs , l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers , an d o t h ers . W e d i sag ree.

Un d er OCGA § 2 4-4 -4 0 4 (b ) (“ Ru l e 4 0 4 (b )”),

ex t ri n s i c act ev i d en ce m ay b e ad m i t t ed if a t h ree-p a r t t es t i s m et : [a] th e

ev i d en ce i s rel ev an t to an i s s u e i n t he cas e o t her t h an t h e d efen d an t ’ s

ch aract er, [b ] th e p ro b at iv e v al u e i s n o t s u b s t an ti al l y o ut wei g h ed b y th e

d an g er o f u n fai r preju d i ce as req u i red b y Ru le 4 03

, an d [c] t h ere i s

s u ffi ci en t p ro o f f

o r a ju ry t o fi n d by a prep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce

t h at t h e d efen dan t co m

m i t t ed t h e p ri o r act

.

6(Ci t at i o n a n d f o o t n o te o m i t t ed ; em

ph as i s s u p p l i ed .) McW

i ll i ams v. S t a t e

, 3 0 4 Ga.

5 0 2

, 5 0 9 (3 ) (8 2 0 SE2 d 3 3 ) ( 2 0 1 8 ) ; s ee al s o Jo n es v. S t at e

, 3 0 1 G a. 5 4 4

, 5 4 5 (8 0 2

SE2 d 2 3 4) (2 0 1 7), an d Ol d s v. S t a t e , 2 9 9 Ga. 6 5 , 7 0 (2 ) (7 8 6 SE2 d 6 33 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

“ Rel ev an t ev i d en ce” i s d efi n ed as th at ev i d en ce wh ich h as “ an y t e n d e n c y to

m ak e t h e ex i s t en ce o f an y fact t h a t i s of co n s eq u en ce t o t he det erm in at i o n o f t h e

act i on m o re p ro b ab le o r les s p ro b ab le t h an i t wo u l d b e w i t ho u t t h e ev i d en ce.” OCGA

§ 2 4 -4 -4 0 1

. OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 ( “ R u l e 4 0 3 ”), wh ich g o vern s t h e s eco n d req u i red

s h o w i n g

, p ro v i d es t h at “ [r] el ev an t ev i d en ce m ay b e ex cl u d ed i f i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e

i s s u b s t an t i al ly o u t wei gh ed b y t h e dan g er o f u n fai r p reju di ce, co n fu s i o n o f t h e i s s u es

,

o r m i s l ead in g t h e j u ry o r b y co n s i d erat i on s o f un d u e d el ay

, was t e of t i m e, o r n eed l es s

p res en t at i o n o f cu m

u l at i v e ev i d en ce.” Th i s s t at u t e “ i s d es i g n ed to ex cl u d e m at t er o f

s can t o r cu m

u l at iv e p ro b at i v e fo rce, drag g ed i n b y t h e h eel s fo r t h e s ak e o f i t s

p reju d i ci al effect .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed .) Mo o n v. S t a t e

, 31 2 G a. 3 1

, 5 1

(3 ) (a) (8 60 SE2 d 5 19 ) (2 0 2 1 ). “ Th e t h i rd p art o f t h e t es t is a p rel im in ary q u es t i o n o f

fact fo r t h e t ri al co u rt

. Ot h er-act s ev i d en ce m ay be ad m i tt ed i f th e c o u r t c o n c l u d es

t h at t h e ev i d en ce is s uffi ci en t fo r t h e ju ry t o fi n d b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce

t h at t h e ot h er act was co m m i t t ed .” (Ci t at io n an d p un ct u at io n om i t ted .) Id

. “ W h en

rev i ewi n g a t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n o n t h e ad m i s s ib i l i t y o f ex tr i n s i c act s ev i d en ce, a

7rev i ewi n g co u rt wi l l n o t d i s t u rb t h e d eci s i on un l e s s t h ere i s a cl ear ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n .” McW

i l l i ams , 3 0 4 Ga. at 5 0 9 (3 ).

Th e cen t ral i ss u e i n t h e cas e w as Brewt on ’ s i n ten t i n fi ri n g t h e ri fl e s h o t t h at

t erri fi ed t h es e v i ct i m s

, wh i ch he p l aced at i s su e wh en h e p l e d n o t g u i l ty

. Ho o d v.

S t a t e , 3 0 9 Ga. 4 93 , 4 9 9 -5 0 0 (2 ) (8 4 7 SE2 d 1 7 2) (2 02 0 ).

[T] h e ex t en t t o wh i ch ev i d en ce ten d s t o m ak e t he ex i s t en c e o f a f a ct

m o re o r les s p ro b ab l e d ep en d s s i g n i fi can t l y on t h e q u al i t y o f th e

ev i d en ce an d t he st ren g t h o f i t s l og i cal co n n ect i o n t o t h e fact fo r wh ich

i t i s o ffered

. P r o ba t i ve va l u e a l s o d ep en d s o n t he ma r

gi n a l wo rt h o

f th e

evi d en ce

– h o w mu ch it a d d s

, i n o t h er wo r ds

, t o t h e o t h er p r o o f

a va i la b l e t o es t a bl is h t h e f a ct f o r wh i ch i t i s of

f er ed

. Th e s t ro n g er th e

o t h er p ro o f, t he l es s t h e m arg i n al v al ue o f t h e ev i d en ce i n q u es t i on

. An d

p ro b at iv e v al u e d ep en d s as wel l u p o n th e n eed fo r t h e ev i d en ce. W h en

t h e fact fo r wh i ch t h e ev i d en ce i s o ffered i s u n d i s p u t ed o r n o t reas o n ab l y

s u s cep t i b le o f d is p ut e, t h e l es s t h e p ro bat i v e v al u e o f t h e ev i d en ce.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i t ted ; em p h as i s s up p l i ed .) McW

il l ia ms

, 3 0 4 Ga. at 5 0 9

-

5 1 0 (3 ).

Here, m o re t h an o n e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at t h ey d i d n ot k n o w wh et h er th e s h o o t er

k n ew t h ey were o n t h e ri v er. Un d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces

, wh ich req u i red th e St at e to

p ro v e Brewt on ’ s i n t en t t o as s au l t o r en d an g er t h em

, “ th e m arg i nal v al u e o f t h e

ex t ri ns i c act s ev i d en ce was g reat i n co m p ari s o n t o th e o t h er av ai l ab l e e v i d e n ce,”

8wh i ch d id n o t i n cl u de an y t es t i m o n y fro m Brewt o n h i m s el f. McW i l l i a ms

, 3 04 Ga. at

5 1 0 (3 ). Each o f t h e o t h er act s i n t ro d u ced b y t h e St at e al s o sh ed l i g h t o n Brewt o n ’ s

t en d en cy

, co n s i s t en t o v er m an y y ears

, t o p ercei v e t h e p res en ce of o t h er p eo p l e o n o r

n ear h i s l an d o r h i s p o rt i o n o f t h e ri v er, i n cl u d i n g l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers

, as a

s eri ou s o r ev en m o rt al t h reat

, an d t o res p o n d t o s u ch t h reat s wi t h o ut d el ib erat i o n an d

wi t h v i o l en ce. Th ere was n o ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n h ere i n ad m i t t i n g ev i den ce o f t h es e

act s as (a) t en d i n g t o p r o v e h i s i n t en t t o p u t t h es e v i ct i m s i n reas o n ab l e fear o r to

d i s reg ard t h ei r s afet y , (b ) n o t u n d u l y p reju di ci al i n l ig h t o f t h ei r p ro b at i v e v al u e o n

t h at i s s u e, an d (c) co m

m i tt ed b y Brewt o n r a t h e r t h an an y o t h er p ers o n

. See Mo o n

,

s u p ra, 3 12 G a. at 5 3 (3 ) (c) (i ) (p ri o r ag grav at ed as s au l t co n v i ct i o n s were ad m i s s i b l e

t o p ro v e d efen d an t ’ s i n t en t t o v i o l en t ly i n ju re v i ct im s b y fi ri n g a g u n at t h em wh i l e

t h ey were i n t hei r car).

3

. Brewt o n al s o arg u es t h at t ri al co u n s el was i n effect i v e i n fai l in g t o o b ject to

(a) t es t i m o n y

co n cern i n g “ fo l k l o re,” “ l eg en d ” o r “ ru m o rs ” ab ou t t h e Yel l o w J ack et

Sh o al s area an d (b ) arg um en t an d q u es t i o n s co n cern i n g Brewt o n ’ s rep u t at i o n fo r

h aras s i n g b o at ers t h ere. W e d i s ag ree.

To s h o w i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el

, a d efen d an t m u s t s h o w t h at

co u ns el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was d efi c i en t an d th at t h e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce preju d i ced

9t h e d efen s e. S m i t h v. Fr a nci s

, 2 5 3 Ga. 7 8 2

, 78 3 (1 ) (3 25 SE2 d 3 62 ) (1 9 8 5 ), ci t i n g

S t r i ckl a nd v. W

a s h i n g t on

, 4 6 6 U. S. 6 6 8 (1 04 SCt 2 0 5 2

, 8 0 L E2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ). As to

d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, “ ev ery effo rt m u s t b e m ad e t o el i m i n at e t h e d i s t o rt i n g effect s

o f h i n d s i g h t ,” an d t h e t ri al co u rt “ m u s t i n d u lg e a s t ro n g p res u m pt i o n t h at co u n sel ’ s

co n du ct fal l s wi t h in t h e wi d e ran g e o f reas o n ab l e p ro fes s i on al as s i s tan ce.” (Ci t at i o n

an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) W h i t e v. S ta t e

, 2 6 5 Ga. 2 2

, 2 3 (2 ) (4 5 3 SE2 d 6 ) (1 9 9 5 ). As

t o p reju di ce, a d efen d an t n eed o n l y sh o w “ a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab il it y o f a d i fferen t

o u t co m e” d u e t o t ri al co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce. (Pu n ct uat i o n an d fo o t n o t e

o m it t ed .) Co b b v. S t a te

, 2 8 3 Ga. 3 8 8

, 3 9 1 (2 ) (6 58 SE2 d 7 5 0 ) (2 00 8 ). Fi n al l y, t h e

q u es ti o n o f i n effect i v en es s i s a m i x ed o n e o f b o th l aw an d fact : “ we accep t t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n d in g s an d cred i b i l i t y d et erm in at io n s u n l es s cl earl y erro n eo u s , b ut

we i n d ep en d en t ly ap p l y t h e l eg al pri n ci pl es t o t h e fact s .” (Fo o t n o te o m i t t ed .) S u gg s

v. S t a t e , 2 7 2 Ga. 8 5 , 8 8 (4 ) (5 2 6 SE2 d 3 47 ) (2 0 0 0 ).

(a) Th e reco rd s h o ws t hat m o re t h an o n e wi t n es s t es t i fi ed ab o ut b ei n g s h o t at

as t h ey fl o at ed p as t t h e Brewt o n p ro p ert y . W h en o t h er wi t n es ses t es t i fi ed ab o u t t h e

“ l eg en d ” o f v i o l en ce at Yel l ow J ack et Sh o al s

, Brew t o n ’ s t ri al co u ns el o b ject ed o n

h ears ay g ro u n ds

, an d t h es e o b ject i on s were s u s t ai n ed

. Tri al co u n s el al s o t es t i fi ed at

t h e h eari ng o n t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew t r i a l t h a t h e e l ect ed t o “ l ean i nt o ” t h e St at e’ s

10n a r rat i v e t hat t h e rep o rt s of s h o o t i ng s were fi ct it io u s b y i n t ro d u ci n g tes t im o n y t h a t

l aw en fo rcem en t h ad n ev er b een cal l ed t h ere co ncern i n g a s h o o t i n g

. C o u n s el al s o

n o t ed t h at rep eat ed o b

ject i o n s t o h ears ay wo u l d h av e on l y d r a w n u n warran t ed

at t en ti o n t o i t

. Becau s e t h i s s t rat eg y was n o t u n rea s o n a b l e

, w e can n ot say t h at t ri al

co u ns el ’ s p erfo rm an ce o n t h i s is s u e was i n ad eq u at e. See W a l ker v. St a te

, 30 8 Ga. 3 3,

3 9 (3 ) (a) (8 3 8 SE2 d 7 9 2 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (t ri al co u n s el ’ s d eci s i o n t o fo rg o o b ject i o n s s o as

n o t t o d raw fu rt her at t en t i on t o wi t n es s es ’ s t at em en t s was a reas o n ab l e s t rat eg y ).

(b ) (i ) Th e reco rd al s o s h o ws t h at al t h o u g h t h e St at e i m pro p erl y s u g ges t ed in

o p en in g s t at em en t th at Brewt o n h ad a “ p ro p e n s i t y” fo r s h oo t i n g at b o at ers o n t h e

r i v er, t h e p ro s ecu to r i m m ed i at el y co rrect ed hers el f t o s ay t h at Brewt o n “ w i l l

o ccas i o n al l y s h oo t a gu n i n t h e ai r t o s care [b o at ers ] off.” See Ki r b y v. S ta t e

, 3 0 4 Ga.

4 7 2

, 4 8 7 (4 ) (b ) (8 19 SE2 d 4 68 ) (2 0 1 8) (ev i d en ce o f a defen d an t ’ s “ in cl i n at i o n ”

t o ward vi o l en ce “ i s a cl as s i c i m p ro p er p ro p en s i t y arg u m en t ”). Tri al co u ns el al s o

t es t i fi ed t h at al t h o u gh he co u l d n o t recal l wh y h e d i d n ot ob ject

, t h e p ro s ecu t o r

“ b ack ed away fro m wh ere sh e was g o i n g wi t h t he p ro p en si t y an d wen t i n a d i fferen t

d i rect i o n .” In l ig ht o f t h e St at e’ s ret reat fro m t h i s su g ges t i o n as wel l as t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s i n s t ru ct i o n t h at op en i n g s t at em en ts w ere n o t ev id en ce, we can n o t s e c o n d

g u es s t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d et e r m i n at i on t h at Brewt o n s u ffered n o p reju di ce i n t h i s

11res p ect

. See Cr u z v. S t a t e

, 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. 8 0 5, 81 2 (3 ) (e) (7 0 0 SE2 d 6 31 ) (2 0 1 0 )

(affi rm i n g d en i al o f an in effect i v e as s i s t an ce cl ai m wh en t ri al co u n s el co ul d n o t recal l

t h e reas o n fo r a t ri al d eci s i o n b u t wh en t he reco rd su p p o rt ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g

t h at t h e d eci s i o n was reas on ab l e t ri al s t rat eg y ).

(i i) Th e St at e co nced es o n ap p eal t h at a p ro s ecu t o r’ s q u es t i o n ab ou t Brewt o n ’ s

“ rep u t at i o n wi t h t h e co m m u ni t y

. . . o n peo p l e fi s h i ng i n fro n t o f h i s c a b i n ” was

i m p ro p er b ecau s e Brewt o n di d n o t i n t ro d u ce t hi s t o p ic hi m s el f. See OCGA § § 2 4 -4

-

4 0 4 (a) (1 ), 2 4 -4 -4 0 5 (a). T h e res p o ns e t o t he i m p ro p er q u es t i on

, ho wev er, was t h at

t h e wi t n es s h ad “ al w ay s k n o wn t h at t h ey we r e v e r y p r o t ect i v e. Yo u co u ld n o t fi s h

t h ere.” (Em

p h as i s s u p p l i ed .) E v en i n t h e ab s en ce o f an o bject i o n fro m co u n s el

,

Brewt o n can n o t s h ow t h at h e was p reju d i ced b y t h e ad m i s s i o n o f ev i d en ce as t o t h e

rep u t at i o n o f t he l o cat io n o r i t s o w n e r s a s p ro tect i v e o f fi s hi n g ri g ht s b ecau s e s u ch

ev i d en ce was cu m

u l at i v e o f ab u n d an t an d d i rect ev i d en ce o f Brewt o n ’ s o wn s t ro n g

feel in g s o n t h e s ub

ject

. See S

a wyer v. S t at e

, 3 0 8 Ga. 3 7 5

, 3 83 -3 8 4 (2 ) (b ) (8 3 9 SE2 d

5 8 2 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (n o p reju d i ce s h o wn fro m ad m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n ce as t o d efen d an t ’ s

p ro p en s it y fo r v i ol e n c e w h e n i t was cu m u l at i ve o f o t h er ev i d en ce o n t h e s am e

s u b ject ).

12Fi n al l y

, an d g i v en t h e qu an t i t y an d q ual i t y o f ev i d en ce ag ai n s t Brewt o n

, we

can n ot s ay t h at t he cu m

u l at i v e effect o f tri al co un s el ’ s few arg uab l e d efi ci en ci es

, as

d i s cu s s ed ab o v e, dep ri ved Brewt o n o f a fai r tri al

. See Hu f f v. S t a te

, 3 1 5 Ga. 5 5 8

, 5 6 7

-

5 6 8 (6 ) (8 8 3 SE2 d 7 7 3 ) ( 2023) ( a c um u l at iv e-effect as s ert i o n o f i n effect iv e as s i s t an ce

fai l ed wh ere a d efen d an t h ad n o t d em o n s t rat ed an y s i g n i fi can t p reju d i ci al effect fro m

as s u m ed t ri al co u rt erro r an d co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce i n fai l i n g t o o b ject t o

t h e “ gan g s t er s t y l e” o f t h e cri m e at i s s u e).

Fo r a l l t h es e reas o n s

, t h e t ri al co urt di d n ot err wh en i t d en i ed Brewt o n ’ s

m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ba r nes , P. J., a n d

W at ki n s , J., co n cu r

.

13