In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: May 2, 2023

S23A0379. PERRAULT v. THE STATE.

 MCMILLIAN, Justice.

In February 2022, a jury found Michael Seth Perrault guilty of 

malice murder and simple battery, family violence of his wife, 

Amanda Perrault.1 On appeal, Perrault asserts that (1) the evidence 

was not sufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred 

in refusing to transfer the case to a different venue; and (3) he is 

 1 Amanda was killed on or about February 3, 2020. On November 3, 2020, 

a Putnam County grand jury indicted Perrault for malice murder (Count 1), 

felony murder (Count 2), aggravated assault, family violence (Count 3), and 

simple battery, family violence (Count 4). At a trial in February 2022, a jury 

found Perrault guilty of all counts. The trial court sentenced Perrault to serve 

life in prison without the possibility of parole on Count 1 and 12 months in 

prison on Count 4, to be served concurrently with Count 1; the remaining 

counts were either vacated by operation of law or merged for sentencing 

purposes. Perrault timely filed a motion for new trial, which he amended 

through new counsel on August 26, 2022. Following a hearing, the trial court 

denied the motion for new trial on September 2, 2022. Perrault timely 

appealed, and the case was docketed to the term of this Court beginning in 

December 2022 and submitted for a decision on the briefs. 
2

entitled to a new trial due to cumulative error. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the 

evidence presented at trial showed that on January 28, 2020, 

Amanda went to a neighbor’s house and called the Putnam County 

Sheriff’s Office to report that Perrault had committed an act of 

domestic violence against her. At the time, Perrault himself was a 

police officer with the Eatonton Police Department. Amanda told the 

responding officer that she had been scared to call the police because 

of her husband’s job, but Perrault had woken her up from a nap, 

called her a “whore,” and held her up against a wall and choked her. 

Perrault’s eight-year-old daughter, B. P., told the responding 

officer that when she got home from school, her father and Amanda 

were arguing, so she hid in her closet. She eventually came out to 

see what was going on and heard Amanda say, “[J]ust let me get my 

purse and I’ll leave.” Then she saw her father push Amanda out the 

front door. While the officer spoke with B. P. inside, he had allowed 

Perrault to retrieve his ID from his car. When the officer went back 
3

outside to speak with Amanda again, he noticed that the garage door 

had been opened and that Amanda appeared more upset. Amanda 

stated that Perrault had opened the garage door and told her, “I got 

you now.” 

Although Perrault initially denied that there had been a 

physical altercation, he later said he had to push Amanda out the 

front door because she would not leave. He later claimed that he had 

to push her because she was hitting him and then stated that he had 

to push her because she was damaging property inside the house. 

Although the responding officer photographed red marks on 

Amanda’s chest, he did not observe any injuries on Perrault or any 

apparent damage in the home. Perrault was placed under arrest 

that evening for simple battery and later placed on administrative 

leave from the Eatonton Police Department.

Six days later, at 1:10 p.m. on February 3, 2020, Putnam 

County Sheriff’s Deputy Terrell Abernathy went to the Perrault 

home to serve a witness subpoena on Perrault for an unrelated 

matter. Deputy Abernathy rang the doorbell, which included a 
4

camera facing the front step, several times and heard heavy 

footsteps moving hurriedly inside the home. However, no one came 

to the door, and he eventually left around 1:17 p.m. Perrault’s 

security system showed the front door being opened at 1:24 p.m. 

Deputy Abernathy was dispatched back to the Perrault home at 1:36 

p.m. regarding a possible suicide after Perrault called the Eatonton 

Police Chief, crying hysterically that his wife had killed herself. 

When Deputy Abernathy arrived back at the house, Perrault 

was sitting on the front steps, crying and wearing gym shorts and a 

t-shirt. Both at the scene and on the ride to the Sheriff’s Office, 

Perrault made several spontaneous statements, including that “he 

did not care if he spent the rest of his life in prison,” that “his life 

was over,” that it was “all his fault,” and that “his wife was trying to 

clear his name, but couldn’t handle the stress of the media.” He also 

made statements that he had witnessed his wife “execute herself.” 

Inside the Perrault home, officers found Amanda deceased in 

her bed from what appeared to be a close contact gunshot wound to 

the right side of her head. She was lying on her back with her hands 
5

down by her side in a cupped position. A .380 Smith & Wesson pistol 

was located near the left side of Amanda’s feet near the footboard 

with a cartridge loaded in the firearm. The magazine had been 

removed from the pistol and was located near Amanda’s right thigh. 

Two cartridges were found in the bedding near the footboard, and a 

spent shell casing was found near the bedroom door, approximately 

17 feet away from where Amanda was found in the bed. Officers 

observed several empty bottles of Fireball whiskey on the 

nightstand and in a black plastic bag on the bedroom floor. Officers 

also located a damp towel on the closet floor and observed that 

Perrault smelled of soap.

When Perrault was led to Sheriff Howard Sills’s office, he 

abruptly stopped crying for the first time. Perrault agreed to speak 

with Sheriff Sills about what had happened to Amanda that day; 

however, Perrault continuously returned to the January 28 incident, 

claiming that Amanda was a “liar” and that the deputies who 

arrested him had overreacted. His only explanation of what had 

happened to Amanda was that they had been lying in bed having a 
6

casual conversation when Amanda abruptly produced a gun, said, “I 

can’t do this,” and shot herself. He claimed that she was distraught 

over what she had done to Perrault and his reputation after he was 

arrested. Perrault denied ever touching the pistol that day and 

initially denied touching Amanda after she shot herself, but later 

said, “I might have hugged the sh*t out of her. I could have touched 

her.” He had no explanation for why the magazine was out of the 

pistol when officers arrived. A gunshot residue test revealed that 

Perrault had one particle of gunshot primer residue on his left 

hand.2 An audio recording of this interview was played for the jury.

The GBI was called to assist in the investigation, and based on 

the blood evidence at the scene, Special Agent Brian Hargrove 

determined that Amanda was in a seated upright position in her bed 

when she sustained the gunshot wound to the right side of her head. 

The majority of the blood evidence was located on the west side wall 

of the bedroom; however, Amanda’s blood was also found in a 

separate location across the house on the door-jamb to the guest 

 2 Amanda’s hands were not tested for gunshot residue.
7

bathroom. There was no blood on either of Amanda’s hands or on the 

sleeves of the shirt Amanda was wearing. 

Officers later determined that Perrault lied about his 

whereabouts in the hours leading up to Amanda’s death. Although 

he claimed that he and Amanda dropped B. P. off at school and then 

went to a gas station on Highway 16, this was disproved by 

surveillance footage from another convenience store that captured 

Perrault entering the store wearing a Costa hat, a Pink Floyd tshirt, and jogging pants. He left the store at 10:16 a.m. and got into 

the front passenger side of his truck, which was being driven by 

Amanda. The shirt and pants Perrault was wearing at that time 

were later located in the washing machine at Perrault’s home. 

A jailhouse informant told officers that Perrault laughed about 

how the officers had “f*cked up [their] own crime scene” and showed 

him the way he pulled back Amanda’s arm to pull the trigger while 

she was passed out. Perrault also told him that they had gone to the 

store to get more Fireball and that his biggest concern was that he 

had been caught on camera with the clothing that was found in the 
8

washing machine and that, if he had known that, he would have 

done things differently.

At trial, the State called several witnesses who had observed 

Perrault’s prior behavior toward Amanda. The Perraults’ next-door 

neighbor, Dawn Anderson, testified that she had overheard Perrault 

and Amanda have terrible, verbally abusive fights. One time she 

saw Amanda running up the hill toward her house while Perrault 

was grabbing her hair. When he let her go, Amanda fell to the 

ground, and Perrault then kicked her in the back and on her side. 

On another occasion, Anderson saw Perrault holding Amanda’s hair 

while she was running out of the garage. Anderson also testified that 

Amanda came to her home one day, crying and saying that Perrault 

had said he was going to kill her. Amanda told her that if she were 

ever found dead, Anderson should make sure the police knew that 

she did not kill herself. On the evening of January 28, 2020, Amanda 

ran into Anderson’s house looking for a telephone. When Amanda 

found Anderson’s phone, she immediately called 911. Anderson saw 

red marks on Amanda’s chest.
9

Another neighbor, Lula Connally, testified that she had heard 

Perrault and Amanda arguing many times, including on the day 

that Amanda was shot. Yet another neighbor, Karen Dorton, 

testified that whenever Perrault was home, she could hear him 

“raging.” At times Dorton considered calling the police, but she was 

intimidated because she knew that Perrault was a police officer. 

One of Amanda’s sisters testified that Perrault was “very 

demeaning” to Amanda. Amanda once told her that she had locked 

herself in a bedroom and put a heavy dresser in front of it after 

Perrault became drunk and belligerent, but Perrault kicked the door 

in, knocked over the dresser, and spit on her. In January 2019, 

Amanda sent her sister messages that Perrault had choked and 

kicked her and destroyed her electronic tablet. In June 2019, 

Amanda sent her a picture of injuries she had on her face. 

Amanda’s other sister also testified about Perrault’s treatment 

of Amanda. In October 2018, Amanda told her that Perrault had 

grabbed her by the hair, thrown her to the floor, and choked her. In 

July 2019, Amanda said that Perrault had tried to choke her and 
10

had punched her in the side of the face. Amanda’s adult daughter 

testified that she had lived with Amanda and Perrault at one point 

and saw Perrault verbally and physically abuse Amanda. In June 

2018, Amanda told her that Perrault had once choked her until she 

almost passed out, pulled her off the bed by her hair, and “busted 

her lip.” Amanda sent her pictures showing the injuries from that 

incident. 

B. P. testified that she had witnessed her father “shove” 

Amanda on January 28, 2020. A recording of B. P.’s forensic 

interview conducted shortly after Amanda’s death was also played 

for the jury. During that interview, B. P. said that her father 

apologized to her after his January 28 arrest and asked her not to 

say anything about what he had done. B. P. also said that Amanda 

had told her that if her “real” mom found out what had happened 

and her father lost custody of her, he would “come shoot [Amanda] 

dead.” 

The State also introduced video evidence from Amanda’s cell 

phone, including a video showing Perrault screaming at Amanda 
11

while they were in their bedroom and a video of Amanda emotionally 

describing the abuse she had recently experienced. Her phone 

records showed that the morning of her death, she called the EBT 

office in Georgia at 8:40 a.m. and that she was searching for homes 

for sale throughout Putnam County the day before her death. 

The medical examiner testified that she “felt that the most 

compelling [conclusion in her] professional judgment was that [the] 

manner [of death] was suicide,” but she could not say which specific 

findings she relied upon to make that determination. She could not 

recall whether she knew that agents later recovered two unfired 

bullets in the bedding and Perrault’s clothing in the washing 

machine, that Perrault had allegedly told Amanda on January 28, 

“I got you now,” that gunshot residue was found on Perrault’s hand, 

or that Perrault told B. P. not to say anything about what had 

happened on January 28. She agreed that Amanda would have been 

immediately incapacitated upon receiving the injury to her head and 

would not have been able to pull the magazine out of the gun. 

Amanda’s blood alcohol content level was 0.230. The toxicology 
12

panel was negative for illegal drugs, but it did not screen for all 

prescription medications. The jailhouse informant also told officers 

that Perrault had given Amanda “painkillers” all day, that she was 

drinking Fireball, and that she had passed out. Officers found a pill 

bottle in Perrault’s safe in the master closet that contained several 

Tylenol Three pills and one Flexeril, a prescription muscle relaxer.

1. Perrault first asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to 

support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt as a matter of 

Georgia statutory law because it did not exclude every reasonable 

theory other than guilt. We are not persuaded. 

Under Georgia’s statutory law, “[t]o warrant a conviction on 

circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent 

with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable 

hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” OCGA § 24-14-6. 

“[A]nd where the jury is authorized to find that the evidence, though 

circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable 

hypothesis save that of the accused, we will not disturb that finding 

unless it was insupportable as a matter of law.” Smith v. State, 315 
13

Ga. 357, 358 (1) (882 SE2d 289) (2022) (citation and punctuation 

omitted). 

Here, Perrault contends that the evidence did not eliminate the 

alternative hypothesis that Amanda committed suicide. But the 

evidence was more than enough for the jury to reject that hypothesis 

as unreasonable. The evidence showed that Perrault was angry at 

Amanda following his January 28 arrest and that his job and 

custody of B. P. were in jeopardy. Family and neighbors detailed 

multiple instances of prior abuse Perrault had inflicted on Amanda, 

as well as her expressly stated concern that he would one day kill 

her. The forensic evidence also showed that Amanda’s blood was 

found across the house and her hands were cupped and positioned 

down by her side while the magazine was out of the gun and placed 

on the opposite side of her body from the gun. In addition, Perrault 

lied about his whereabouts the morning of the shooting, and the 

clothing he was wearing was found in the washing machine, a 

concern Perrault conveyed to the jailhouse informant, along with 

other incriminating information. 
14

Although Perrault points to certain inconsistencies in the 

evidence, including the medical examiner’s conclusion and the lack 

of gunshot residue testing on Amanda’s hands, “it is axiomatic that 

resolving evidentiary conflicts and assessing witness credibility are 

within the exclusive province of the jury.” Graves v. State, 298 Ga. 

551, 553 (1) (783 SE2d 891) (2016). And it is the jury’s role to 

determine “[w]hether an alternative hypothesis raised by the 

defendant is ‘reasonable.’” Smith, 315 Ga. at 358 (1). See also McCoy 

v. State, 315 Ga. 536, 542-43 (883 SE2d 740) (2023) (even assuming 

all of the evidence was circumstantial, it was sufficient as a matter 

of Georgia statutory law); Adkins v. State, 314 Ga. 477, 482 (2) (877 

SE2d 582) (2022) (jury was free to reject as unreasonable 

defendant’s theory that the victim committed suicide). The evidence 

presented at trial was sufficient to authorize the jury to reject 

Perrault’s theory that Amanda had killed herself and instead find 

Perrault guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a 
15

reasonable doubt.3 Accordingly, this enumeration of error fails.

2. Perrault next asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to 

transfer this case to a different venue. This claim is without merit. 

Although Perrault filed a motion to change venue in November 2020, 

he expressly withdrew that motion during a pretrial hearing in 

February 2022 before the trial court made any ruling on the motion. 

Accordingly, there is nothing for this Court to review, and this 

enumeration of error fails.4

 3 To the extent Perrault also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as 

a matter of constitutional due process, we conclude that the evidence presented 

at trial was sufficient to allow a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Perrault was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted. See Jackson 

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979) (when 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of constitutional due 

process, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict 

to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found all of the 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt). To the extent that Perrault 

also asks this Court to review the trial court’s determination on the general 

grounds, that argument is not properly addressed to this Court and necessarily 

fails. See Caviston v. State, 315 Ga. 279, 286 (1) (882 SE2d 221) (2022). 

4 Perrault argues in passing that his trial counsel’s withdrawal of the 

motion to change venue constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. However, 

because this claim was raised for the first time in his reply brief on appeal, 

Perrault has forfeited an ineffective assistance claim on this ground. See 

Patterson v. State, 314 Ga. 167, 171 (2) (a) (875 SE2d 771) (2022) 

(“Ineffectiveness claims must be raised and pursued at the earliest practicable 

moment, which for a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is at the 

motion for new trial stage if the defendant is no longer represented by the 

attorney who represented him at trial.”). 
16

3. In his final enumeration of error, Perrault argues that he is 

entitled to a new trial due to the cumulative effect of several 

evidentiary and other types of errors and the ineffective assistance 

of trial counsel. Although Perrault has not separately enumerated 

these errors, he identifies the following: (a) law enforcement failed 

to maintain the chain of custody of the firearm; (b) the presence of 

Sheriff Sills at the prosecution table during trial violated the rule of 

sequestration; (c) the trial judge improperly referred to Sheriff Sills 

as a prosecutor; (d) the prosecutor referred to Perrault as a murderer

“during the trial”; and (e) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing 

to call unidentified “key witnesses” to testify.5 We are not persuaded

that Perrault has shown that he is entitled to a new trial on this 

basis.

To establish cumulative error, Perrault must show that “at 

least two errors were committed in the course of the trial and 

 5 Without naming the witness, Perrault asserts: “This witness would 

have shown that the January 28, 2020[ ] incident was truly a 

misunderstanding, and there was no physical confrontation.” Perrault does not 

attempt to describe the anticipated testimony of the other “key witnesses” who 

he claims should have been called to testify. 
17

considered together along with the entire record, the multiple errors 

so infected the jury’s deliberation that they denied [him] a 

fundamentally fair trial.” Huff v. State, 315 Ga. 558, 567-68 (6) (883 

SE2d 773) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted). Perrault failed 

to carry this burden. Not only has he failed to separately enumerate 

the underlying errors he claims should cumulatively result in a new 

trial, he has largely failed to specify where in the record the alleged 

errors occurred, whether these claims were preserved for appellate 

review,6 or in what way this Court should aggregate the combination 

of evidentiary and non-evidentiary errors alleged. See Jones v. State, 

314 Ga. 605, 617 (5) n.9 (878 SE2d 505) (2022) (cautioning that if an 

appellant seeks a new trial based on cumulative errors outside of 

the evidentiary context, he would do well to explain why cumulative 

error should be so extended); Willis v. State, 304 Ga. 686, 696 (7) (d) 

 6 For example, because Perrault did not object to the firearm’s chain of 

custody at trial, this evidentiary claim is reviewed only for plain error. See

OCGA § 24-1-103 (d). However, Perrault has not even attempted to satisfy any 

of the four prongs required to establish plain error. See Griffin v. State, 309 

Ga. 860, 864 (2) (849 SE2d 191) (2020) (to establish plain error, appellant must 

point to error that was (1) not affirmatively waived; (2) clear and not open to 

reasonable dispute; (3) affected his substantial rights; and (4) seriously 

affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings). 
18

(820 SE2d 640) (2018) (because the appellant provided no citation to 

any evidence in the record to support his claim, and this Court could 

not readily identify its location, he failed to provide adequate 

argument and citation on appeal for this Court to conclude that the 

trial court erred). This Court is not required to cull the record to 

search for support for Perrault’s claims, and we decline to do so here. 

See Green v. State, 300 Ga. 707, 712 (4) (797 SE2d 863) (2017) 

(declining to cull the record to review the merits of appellant’s vague 

claims that there were “numerous matters” relating to trial counsel’s

performance). Accordingly, Perrault has failed to establish any 

error, much less cumulative error, and this enumeration fails. See 

Heade v. State, 312 Ga. 19, 29 (5) (860 SE2d 509) (2021) (appellant’s 

cumulative error argument fails when there are no errors to 

cumulate); Flood v. State, 311 Ga. 800, 808-09 (2) (d) (860 SE2d 731) 

(2021) (“[W]hen reviewing a claim of cumulative prejudice, we 

evaluate only the effects of matters determined to be error rather 

than the cumulative effect of non-errors.” (citation and punctuation 

omitted)). 
19

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.