FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M C FA DDEN, C. J.

, M CM ILLI A N, P. J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA TE JUDGE PHI PPS

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.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 13, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A2 10 5 . M U RPHY v . THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , Ch i ef J u d g e.

Aft er cas h i n g a co u n terfei t ch eck at a b an k

, Sam u el Earl M u rp h y was i n d i ct ed

fo r t hi rd -d eg ree fo rg ery (OCGA § 1 6 -9 -1 (d )) an d t h eft b y t ak i n g (OCGA § 1 6 -8 -2 ).

On t h e day he was s ch ed u led t o g o t o t r i a l h e fl ed fro m t h e co u rt h ou s e, an d h e

s u b s e q u en t l y pl ed g u i l t y t o an d was co nv i ct ed o f b ai l ju m p i n g (OCGA § 1 6 -1 0

- 5 1

(a)). At M u rp h y ’ s l at er t ri al o n t h e fo rg ery an d t h eft o ffen ses

, h i s t ri al co un s el d i d n ot

o b ject wh en th e s t at e p res en t ed ev i den ce o f h i s b ai l -ju m p i ng co n v i ct i o n

. Hi s t ri al

co u ns el al s o d i d no t o b

j ect wh en

, u p on recei p t of a q u es t i o n fro m t h e ju ry d u ri n g

d el i b erat i o n s

, t h e t ri al co u rt p arap h ras ed i t fo r co u n s el an d d id n ot s h are i t s d i s cl o s u re

o f an el ev en -t o -o n e s p l i t i n fav o r o f co n v i ct i o n

.Th e ju ry fo u n d M u rp h y gu i l t y o n bo t h co u n ts

. On ap peal

, M u rp h y arg u es t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt erred in wi t h h o ld i n g fro m co u ns el t h e j u ry ’ s d i s cl o s u re o f t h ei r el ev en

t o -o n e sp l i t. Bu t h e h as n o t s h ow n t h at t hi s was p l ai n erro r. H e al so arg u es t h at h i s

t ri al co un s el ’ s fai l u re to o b ject t o t h e t ri al co urt ’ s h a n d l i n g o f t h e ju ry n o t e an d h i s

fai l u re t o o b

j e c t t o t he ad m i s s i o n of ev i den ce o f hi s b ai l -ju m p in g co n v i ct i o n

co n st i t u t ed i n effect i v e as s i s t a n c e o f co u n s el

. Bu t h e h as n o t s h o w n b o t h d efi ci en t

p erfo rm an ce an d preju d ice. So we affi rm

.

1

. Fa ct s

.

Vi ewed i n t h e l i g h t m os t fav o rab le t o t h e v erd i ct

, t h e tri al ev i d en ce s h o wed t h at

o n M ay 17

, 2 0 1 6

, M u rp h y cas h ed a ch eck fo r $ 1 5 4 5

. 6 5 a t a b r a n ch o f t h e W el l s

Farg o b an k . Th e ch eck , wh ich was m ad e o u t t o M u rp h y

, p u rp o rt ed t o b e wri t t en o n

t h e acco u n t o f a b u s i n es s l o cat ed in Al ab a m a

. B u t M u rp h y h ad n o co nn ect i o n wi th

t h e b u si n es s

, an d t he b u s i n es s h ad n o t wri t t en t h e ch eck t o M u rp h y or au th o ri zed i t

t o b e cas h ed

. In s t ead

, i t was a co u n t erfei t ch eck

, fab ri cat ed w i th t h e b u s i n es s ’ s

acco u n t an d ro u t i ng n u m

b ers

. Ul t i m at el y th e b an k rei m b u rs ed t h e b u si nes s an d b o re

t h e l o s s fo r t h e ch eck

.

2

. Ju r y n o t e.

2D u ri n g i t s d el ib erat i o n s

, t h e ju ry s en t t h e tri al co u rt a n o t e th at s t a t e d : “ 1 1

- 1

g u i l t y o n b o t h co u n t s

. At an i m p as s e. Su g g es t i o ns [? ] ” Th e t ri al co urt i n fo rm ed

co u ns el an d M u rp h y

o f t h e n ot e an d p arap h ras ed i ts co n t en ts

, t el l i n g t hem :

I h av e recei v ed a n ot e fro m t h e ju ry , an d t h e i n fo rm at i o n th at i s o n th e

n o t e s en d s m e t h e v ery cl ear m es s ag e t h at t h ey are n o t i n ag reem en t o n

a v erd i ct at t h is p o i n t in t i m e, an d th ey feel l i ke ev en t h ou g h t h ey ’ ve

b een d el i b erat in g a wh o le h o u r t h at t h ey ’ re no t g o i ng to b e ab l e t o m ak e

an y p ro gres s

, an d so t h ey h av e as k ed fo r su g ges t i o n s

. T h ey ’ ve al s o

d i s cl o s ed so m e o t h er i n fo rm at i on i n t h i s n o t e t h a t I’ m m ak in g th e

d eci si o n t h at I’ m n o t g o i n g t o s h are wi th t h e l awy ers o r M r. M u rp h y at

t h i s po i n t i n t i m e. I wi ll m ak e t h i s n o te a reco rd l at er in

— p art o f th e

reco rd l at er i n t h i s cas e, b u t ri g h t n o w I’ m n o t g o i n g t o

.

T h e t r i a l co u rt an d co u n s el d i s cu s sed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n t en d ed res p o n se. Aft er

recei v i ng co un s el ’ s i n pu t , t h e t ri al co u rt t h en i n st ru ct ed t h e ju ry as fo l l o ws :

Lad i es an d g en t l em en

, I h av e recei v ed y o u r n o t e. T h e co u rt h as

rev i ewed it

. J u s t m e. I’ m t h e o n l y o n e wh o has rev i ewed it at t h i s p o i n t

i n t i m e

, a n d I un d ers t an d t h at y o u g u y s are h av i ng s o m e d i ffi cu l t y

co m i n g t o an ag reem en t

. Ho w ev er, I wo u l d li k e t o en co u rag e y o u t o

co n t in u e y o u r d el i b erat i o n s

. It i s y o u r d u t y t o d el i b erat e, s o I wo ul d as k

y o u to g o b ack an d co n t i n u e y o u r d el ib erat i on s

. Th an k y o u v ery m u ch

.

3M u rp h y arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt v i o lat ed hi s ri g h t t o c o u n s el by fai l i n g to

“ d i vu l g e i n fu ll ” t he n o t e’ s co n ten t s

, s p eci fi cal l y t h e el ev en -t o-o n e v o t e s p li t

. He d id

n o t m ak e t h i s o b

ject i o n t o t h e t ri al co u rt b el o w b u t arg u es t h at t he t ri al co u rt ’ s act i on s

co n st i t u t ed p l ai n erro r. As su m in g wi t h o ut d eci di n g t h at p l ai n -erro r rev i ew ap p l i es to

t h i s t y p e o f c h a l l e n g e

, M urp h y “ m u st d em o n st rat e t hat t h e

. . . erro r was n ot

affi rm at i v el y wai v ed

, w a s o bv i o u s b ey o n d reas o nab l e d i sp u te, l i k el y affect ed t h e

o u t co m e o f t h e p ro ceed in g s

, an d s eri o u s l y affect ed t h e fai rn es s

, i nt eg ri t y

, o r p u b l i c

rep u t at i o n o f j u d ici al p ro ceed i n g s .” Ho o d v. S t a t e

, 3 0 3 Ga. 4 20

, 4 2 5 (2 ) (a) (8 1 1

SE2 d 3 9 2 ) (2 0 1 8). H e h as n ot d o n e s o, b eca u s e h e h a s n o t s h o wn t hat th i s cl ai m ed

erro r was o b v i ou s b ey on d reas o n ab l e d i s p u t e.

It i s t ru e t h at “ t h e fai lu re o f t h e t ri al co u rt t o i n fo rm co u n s el o f t h e co n t en t s o f

a ju ry n o t e a n d t o s eek co m

m en t o r i n p u t i n t h e fo rm u l at i o n o f t h e co u rt ’ s res p o n s e

co n st i t u t es a v i o l at io n o f a d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t t o co u n sel .” Do wd a v. S t a t e

, 3 4 1 Ga.

A p p

. 2 9 5

, 2 99 (3 ) (7 9 9 SE2 d 8 07 ) (2 0 1 7) (ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at io n o m i t t e d ;

em ph as i s s u p p l i ed ). A t ri al co u rt m u s t

h av e ju ro rs ’ co m

m u n i cat i o n s s u b m i t ted t o t h e co u rt i n wri t in g ;

. . . m ark

t h e wri t t en co m

m u n i cat i o n as a co u rt ex h i b it i n t h e pres en ce o f co u ns el ;

. . . affo rd co u n sel a fu ll o p p ort u n it y t o su g ges t an ap p ro p ri at e res po n s e;

an d

. . . m ak e co u n s el aware o f t h e s u b s t an ce o f t he t ri al co u rt ’ s i nt en d ed

4res p on s e i n o rd er th at co u n s el m ay s eek wh at ev er m od i fi cat i o n s co u n s el

d eem s ap p ro p ri at e b efo re t h e ju ry i s ex po s ed t o t h e i n s t ru ct io n

.

Lo wer y v. S t a t e

, 2 8 2 Ga. 6 8 , 7 6 (4 ) (b ) (i i ) (6 4 6 SE2 d 6 7 ) (2 0 0 7 ).

Bu t “ th e nu m eri cal di v i s i o n b et ween g ui l t an d i n n o cen ce d u ri n g a ju ry ’ s

d el i b erat i o n i s n ot n o rm al l y av ai l ab l e t o a d efen d an t” an d a t ri al co u rt m ay o m i t t h at

i n fo rm at i o n wh en i nfo rm i n g co u n s el o f t h e co n t en t s o f a ju ry n o t e. Y o uma ns v. S t a t e

,

2 7 0 G a. A p p

. 83 2

, 8 3 3 (1 ) (6 0 8 SE2 d 3 0 0) (2 00 4 ). W e d i s c e r n n o o b vi o u s erro r

wh ere, as h ere, t h e t ri al co urt co m m u n i cat ed th e s ub s tan ce o f t h e n o te t o c o u n s el

,

i n fo rm ed co u n sel o f h i s i n ten d ed res p o n s e, ex p res s l y s o u g ht co m m en t an d i n p u t fro m

co u ns el

, i n co rp o rat ed t h at i n p u t i n t o t h e res p o n s e u l t i m at el y g i v en to t h e ju ry

, an d

l at er m ark ed t h e ju ry

n ot e as an ex h i b i t an d p u t i t i n t o t h e reco rd

.

Becau s e M u rp h y h as n ot s h o wn an ob v i o u s erro r, h e h as n o t s h o wn p l ai n erro r.

Ho o d , 3 0 3 Ga. at 4 2 5 (2 ) (a).

3

. In ef f ect i ve a s s i s t a n ce o

f t ri a l co u n s el

.

M u rp h y arg u es t h at h i s t ri al co u n s el was i neffect i v e i n fai l i n g t o o b ject b o t h to

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s h an dl i n g o f t h e ju ry n o t e an d t o t h e ad m i s si o n o f ev i d en ce o f h i s b ai l

ju m p i n g co n v i ct i o n

. To p rev ai l o n t h i s cl ai m

, h e “ m u s t p ro v e b o t h t h at h is co u n sel ’ s

p erfo rm an ce was p r o f

e s s io nal l y d efi ci en t an d t h at

, b u t fo r th e u n p ro fes s i o n al

5p erfo rm an ce, t h ere i s a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at t he o u t co m e of t h e p r o c e e d i n g

w o u l d h av e b een d i fferen t

. [Ci t .] W e n eed n o t rev iew b o t h el em en t s of t h i s t es t i f

[M u rp h y ] fai l s t o pro v e o n e o f t h em .” S t r ip l i n g v. S t at e

, 3 0 4 Ga. 1 31

, 1 3 8 (3 ) (b ) (8 1 6

SE2 d 6 6 3) (2 0 1 8). See S t r i ckl a n d v. W a sh i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U. S. 66 8 , 6 8 7 (III) (1 0 4 SCt

2 0 5 2

, 8 0 LE2 d 6 74 ) (1 9 8 4 ). In t h i s cas e, Mu rp h y h as n o t s h o wn p reju d i ce as t o ei t h er

al l eg ed d efi ci en cy

.

(a) Ju r y n o t e.

M u rp h y arg u es th at h i s t ri al co u n s el w as i n effect i v e fo r fai l i ng t o o b ject wh en

t h e t ri al co u rt p arap h ras ed t h e co n t en ts o f t h e ju ry no t e rat h er t h an read i n g i t

v erb at i m

. As d et ai l ed ab o v e, th e t ri al co u rt ’ s act i o n s i n res p o n se t o t h e n ot e were n ot

p l ai n erro r, an d

t h e t es t f o r h a r m u n d er p l ai n erro r rev i ew i s eq u i val en t t o t h e tes t i n

i n effect iv e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s e l c a s es fo r wh et h er an at to rn ey ’ s

[al l eg ed l y] d efi ci en t perfo rm an ce h as res ul t ed i n p reju d i ce o f

c ons t i t u ti o n al pro po rt i o n s

. As a res u l t

, [M urp h y ’ s ] i n ef f e c tive a s sista

nc e

cl ai m s b as ed o n [t ri al co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce i n co n nect i o n wi th t h e ju ry

n o t e] are wi t h o u t m eri t.

W i l l ia ms v. St a t e

, 3 0 4 G a

. 4 5 5, 4 6 0 (3 ) n .4 (8 1 8 SE2 d 6 5 3) (2 0 1 8 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

6(b ) Ba i l -j ump i ng co n vi ct i o n

.

M u rp h y arg u es t h at h i s t ri al co u n s el w as i neffect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o o b ject t o t h e

ev i d e n c e t h a t h e fl ed t he co u rt h o u s e o n t h e d ay h e w as t o b e t ri ed an d s o was

co n vi ct ed o f b ai l-ju m

p i n g

. O u r n ew Ev i d en ce Co d e l i m i t s t he ad m i s s i o n o f ev i d en ce

o f o t h e r cri m in al act s, s ee O CGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 4 (b ) (“ Ru l e 4 0 4 (b )”), b u t t h o s e

l i m i tat i on s “ d o no t ap p l y to ‘ i n t ri n s i c ev i d en ce.’ ” Hi l l v. S t a t e , 3 5 1 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8

, 6 5

(3 ) (c) (8 3 0 SE2 d 47 8 ) (2 0 1 9) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m it t ed ). See Ba u g h n s v.

S t a t e

, 3 35 Ga. A p p. 6 0 0

, 6 0 2 (1 ) ( 7 8 2 SE2 d 4 9 4 ) (2 01 6 ) (Geo rg i a’ s p ri o r ru l e

reg ard i n g t h e ad m i s s i b i l it y o f “ res ges t ae” ev i d en ce was “ carri ed fo rward t o t h e n ew

E vi d en ce Co d e u n d er t h e co ncep t o f ‘ i n t ri n s i c fact s ’ ev i den ce, as co m p ar e d t o

ev i d en ce o f ‘ ex t ri n si c act s ’ wh i ch are gen eral ly i nad m i s s ib l e p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 2 4

-

4 -4 0 4 ( b ) ” )

. T h e t ri al co u rt h el d t h at t h e ev i d en ce o f M u rp h y ’ s co n v i ct i o n fo r b ai l

ju m p i n g was ad m i s s i b l e as i n t ri n s i c ev i d en ce.

M u rp h y arg u es t h at t h e fl i g h t i n t h i s cas e do es n o t m eet t h e d efi n i t i o n o f

“ i n tri n s i c ev i d en ce” th at Geo rg i a h as ad o p ted fro m t h e El ev en t h Ci rcu i t

. Un d er t h at

d efi n i t i o n

,

[e] v i d en ce i s ad m is s i b l e as in t ri n s i c ev i d e n c e wh en it i s (1 ) an

u n ch arg e d o ffen s e ari s i n g fro m t h e s am e t ran s act i o n o r s eri es o f

7t ran s act i o ns as t he ch arg ed o ffen s e; (2 ) neces s ary t o co m p l et e t he s t o ry

o f t h e cri m e; o r (3 ) i n ex t ri cab l y i n tert wi n ed wi t h t he ev i den ce reg ard i n g

t h e ch arg ed o ffen s e.

. . . [E] v i d en ce o f ot h er act s i s i n e x t r i cab l y

i n t ert wi n ed wi t h t h e ev i den ce reg ard i n g t h e ch arg ed offen s e i f i t fo rm s

a n i n t eg ral an d nat u ral p art o f t h e wi t n es s ’ s acco u n t s o f th e

ci rcu m s t an ces s u rro u n d i n g t h e o ffen s es fo r w h i ch t h e d efen d an t w as

i n d i ct ed

.

W i l l ia ms v. S t a te

, 3 02 Ga. 4 7 4, 4 8 5 -4 8 6 (IV) (d ) (8 0 7 SE2 d 3 5 0 (2 0 1 7 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). It i s arg u ab l e t h at M urp h y ’ s fl i g h t d o es n ot fal l wi t h i n an y o f

t h o s e cat eg o ri es

.

Bu t ev en if we as s u m e fo r p u rp os es of arg u m en t t hat t h e ev i d en ce o f M u rp h y ’ s

b ai l -ju m p i n g co n vi ct i o n w a s n o t i n tri n s ic, an d t h at h i s t ri al co u n sel p erfo rm ed

d efi ci en tl y i n fai l i ng t o o b j ect t o i t s ad m i s s i o n o n th at gro u n d

, M u rp h y h as n ot s h o wn

t h at t h i s al l eg e d defi ci en cy p reju d i ced h im

. Th e ev i d en ce o f h i s g ui l t was

o v erwh el m i ng ; i t s h o wed t h at h e cas h ed a ch eck fo r o v er $ 1 5 0 0 m ad e o u t to h i m o n

t h e acco u n t o f a bu s i n es s i n an o t h er s t at e wi t h wh i c h h e h a d no co n n ect i o n.

“ [B] ecau se t he ev i d en ce o f [h i s ] g u i l t was ov erwh el m in g

, h e h as fai l ed to s h o w t h at

h e was p reju d i ced by co u n s el ’ s al l eg ed d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce. A c c o rd i n g l y

, h i s cl ai m

o f i n effect i v e a s s i s t an ce o f co un s el i s wi t h o u t m eri t .” Ta yl o r v. S t a t e

, 30 3 Ga. 5 8 3,

5 8 5 (2 ) (8 1 4 SE2 d 3 02 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

8(c) Cu mu la t i ve ef f ect o f a l l eg ed d ef ici en t p er f o r ma n ce.

“ Al t h ou g h we h av e ev al u at ed each o f [M u rp h y ’ s ] c l a i m s o f i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce o f co u n s el s ep arat el y

, we al s o reco gn i ze t h at th e effect o f p reju d i ce fro m

co u ns el ’ s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce i s v i ewed cu m u l at iv el y. ” Ben t ley v. S ta t e

, 3 0 7 Ga.

1

, 1 1 (2 ) (d ) (8 3 4 S E 2 d 5 4 9 ) (2 0 19 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). W e h av e

co n si d ered t h e cu m

u l a t i v e effect o f t h e defi ci en ci es as s u m ed ab o ve an d “ co n cl u d e

t h at t h ey d o n o t es t ab l i s h a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i li t y t h at th e res u l t o f [M u rp h y ’ s ] t ri al

wo u l d h av e b een d ifferen t i n t h e ab s en ce o f t h e d efi ci en ci es al leg ed .” Id

.

Ju d g me n t a f fi r med

. M

cMi l l i a n

, P.J., a n d S

en io r Ap pel l a t e Ju d

g e Her b er t E.

Ph i p ps co n cu r

.

9