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

De c id e d : F e bru a ry 2 , 2 0 1 5

S 1 4 A1 6 5 7 . THE S TATE v . S IMS

.

BENHAM, Ju stic e

.

Th e S ta te a

p p e a ls th e tria l c o u r t’s d e c isio n to g ra nt a p p e lle e S te v e A.

S im s, Jr.’s m o tio n fo r n e w tria l in re ga rd to his c o n v ic ti o n s a nd se n te n c e s fo r

fe lo ny m u rd e r a n d p o sse ssio n o f a fire a rm d u rin g th e c o m m issio n o f a fe lo n y

. 1

F o r re a so n s se t fo rth b e lo w, we a ffirm

.

1

. Th e e vid e n c e v ie we d in a lig h t m ost fa vo ra b le to th e ju r y ’ s v e r d i c t

sh o ws th a t se v e ra l e y e witn e sse s sa w a p p e lle e sh o o t S h a w n Ha n c o c k a fte r

1 The crimes occurred on March 10, 2012. On March 29, 2 012, a Stephens County g rand jury

returned a true bill o f indictment charg ing appellee w ith malice murder, f elony murder, ag g ravated

a s s a u l t

, possession of f

irearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the

commission of a f

elony

. Appellee w as tried before a jury from September 24, 2012, to September 28, 2012, and the jury acquitted appellee o f m a l i c e murder and ag g ravated assault, but found him

g uilty on the remaining charg es. The jury a lso found appellee g uilty of v oluntary manslaug hter as

a lesser included o ffense of malice murder, but that count was vacated as a matter of law. On

O ct o ber 25, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellee to a life sentence for felony murd e r a n d f i v e

y ears to be served consecutively for possession of a firearm d uring the commission o f a felony

. The

count of possession of a firearm by a convicted f elon merg ed into the felony murder conviction. Appellee moved f

or a new trial on October 5, 2012, and amended his motion o n November 11, 2013.
The trial court heard the motion on November 13, 2013, a nd g ranted the motion on May 16, 2014.
The State filed a timely appeal on J une 13, 2014, and the case was docketed to the September 2014 Term of this Court. The case was orally arg ued on October 7, 2014.Ha n c oc k h a d in te rje c te d h im se lf in to a n a rg u m e n t S im s wa s h a vin g with h is e x

g irlfrie n d K.M. K.M. te stifie d th a t Ha n c o c k wa s lik e h e r b ro th e r. A we e k

b e fo re th e sh o o tin g o u tsid e th e h o m e o f a p p e lle e ’s gra n d m o th e r, 2 a pp e lle e a n d

Ha n c oc k h a d a lso g o tte n in to a n a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g a p p e lle e ’s re la t i o n s h i p w i t

h

K.M., b u t n o p h y sic a l a lte rc a tio n o c c u rre d an d Ha n c oc k le ft a f t e r a p p e lle e ’s

g ra n dm o th e r th re a te n e d to c a ll p o lic e

. O n th e n ig ht o f th e sh o o tin g , K .M. wa s

d riv in g in h e r c a r with Ha n c o c k

, h e r m o th e r, a n d two frie n ds w h e n sh e sp o tte d

a p p e l le e in his c a r with a wo m a n

. K.M. fo llo w e d a pp e lle e to h is re sid e n c e

.

K.M. p a rk e d in th e stre e t a n d g o t ou t of h e r ve h ic le to c on fro nt a pp e lle e a n d th e

two a rg ue d . Du rin g th e a rg u m e n t, K.M. sla p p e d a p pe lle e

. H a n c oc k

, wh o h a d

b e e n w a tc h in g th e a rg u m e nt fro m th e c a r, go t o u t o f th e ve h ic le a n d trie d to

e n co u r a g e K.M. to le a v e

. Th e situ a tio n b e c a m e h e a te d a n d Ha n c o c k a n d

a p p e lle e b e g a n to sh o v e a n d p u sh e a c h o th e r. K.M.’s m o th e r te stifie d sh e sa w

a p p e lle e a n d Ha n c o c k “ swin g in g ” a t e a c h o th e r, b u t c ou ld n o t sa y wh e th e r a n y

b lo ws la n d e d

. Th e e v id e n c e sh o we d Ha n c o c k wa s ta lle r a n d th re e tim e s h e a v ie r

th a n a p p e lle e

. All e y e witn e sse s t e s t ifie d Ha n c o c k wa s un a rm e d d u rin g th e

2 Appellee lived at his g randmother’s house with his father and g randmother.

2a lte rc a ti o n

. 3 Witn e sse s sa id a p p e lle e we n t in to h is g ra nd m o th e r' s re sid e n c e ,

c a m e b a c k o u tsid e with a g u n in h is h a nd a n d sh o t Ha n c o c k se v e ra l tim e s. Th e

m e d ic a l e x a m in e r te stifie d th a t Ha n c o c k h a d a t le a st fo u r g u n sh o t w o u n d s, b u t

wa s un a b le to sa y e x a c tly ho w m a n y b u lle ts c a u se d th e wo u n d s. E y e witn e sse s

t e s t i f i e d th e y h e a

rd two to th re e g u n sh o ts. Th e m e d ic a l e x a m in e r sta te d th e r e

wa s n o stip p lin g o r gu n re si d u e o n Ha n c o c k’s c lo th in g o r o n h is b o d y ,

in d ic a tin g th e sh o ts we re n ot m a de a t c lo se ra ng e

. Th e m e d i c a l e x a m in e r

c o n c lu d e d th a t Ha n c o c k d ie d fro m a gu nsh o t wo u nd to th e c h e st pie rc in g h is

h e a rt a n d lu n g

.

An a g e n t wi t h t h e Ge o rg ia Bu re a u o f In v e stig a tio n (GBI) in te rv ie we d

a p p e lle e fo r a n h o u r sh o rtly a fte r h is a rre st. Th e a g e n t te stifie d h e d id n o t n o tic e

a n y in ju ry to a p p e lle e ’s fa c e a t th e tim e o f th e in te rv ie w. Th e Sta te p l a y e d a n

a u d io re c o rd in g o f a

p p elle e ’s in te rv ie w with th e GBI a ge n t. Du rin g th a t

in te rv ie w, a

p p e lle e in itia lly d e n ie d h a v in g a g u n o r sh o otin g th e v ic tim

. Wh e n

c o n fro n te d with th e k n owle d g e th a t th e a g e n t h a d sp o k e n w ith h is fa th e r a t th e

sc e n e , a pp e lle e a d m itte d to sh o o ti n g t h e v ic tim

. Ap p e lle e to ld th e a g e n t

3 Althoug h authorities retrieved a pocketknife from Hancock’s pocket before his body was

sent for autopsy

, there was no evidence that Hancock pulled o ut the k nife o r threatened any one with the knife duringthe altercation with appellee.

3Ha n c oc k h i t h i m no m o re th a n th re e tim e s in th e fa c e

. He sa id th e first b lo w

wa s we a k

, th a t th e se c o n d b lo w m a d e h im “ d iz z y ,” a n d he w a s n o t su re a b o u t

wh e th e r th e re wa s a th ird b lo w. Af t e r t h e s e c o n d b lo w , h e sa id h e d id n o t

b e lie v e he c o u ld “b e a t” Ha n c o c k a nd h e d i d n o t wa n t to b e “ la y in g o n th e

g ro u n d ” in fro n t o f his g ra n d m o th e r a n d h is g ra n d m oth e r h a v in g to “ p ic k [h im ]

u p .” Wh e n a sk e d wh e re h e “ h a [d ] ” th e g un u se d to sh o o t Ha nc o c k

, a p p e lle e

sa id it wa s u n d e r h is g ra n d m o th e r’s c o u c h

. 4 Ap p e lle e n e v e r d e n ie d go in g in sid e

th e h o u se to g e t th e g u n a fte r Ha n c o c k h it h im

.

Du rin g th e in te rv ie w with th e GBI a ge n t, a p p e lle e wa s u na wa re th a t

Ha n c oc k wa s de c e a se d. At tria l, witn e sse s te stifie d th a t o n c e Ha n c o c k wa s sh o t,

h e wa s a b le to sit d o wn in K.M.’s c a r. At th a t p o in t, a ll o f K .M.’s p a s s e n g e rs

4 The audio recording and transcript of appellee’s interview with t h e G BI age nt shows in relevant part: [ Appellee] : W hen he hit me, the second blow kinda g ot me a little diz z y and I don’t

know if he hit me a third time after the second one and I felt like I stumbled. [ GB I Ag ent] : Um-hum. [ Appellee] : That’s when I pulled the g u n out on him.

... [ GB I Ag ent] : W here did y ou have the g un at? [ Appellee] : W here did I

have the g

un at? [ GB I Ag ent] : Yeah. [ Appellee] : Uhhh, [ i] t was under my g randmother’s couch[ .] [ GB I Ag ent] : Okay

. So after [ Hancock] hit y ou, y ou went in and pulled it o u t from

under the couch? Did g randma know that y ou h ad the g un in her house? She didn’t

did she? [ Appellee] : Mmm-mmm [ neg ative]

.

4g o t b a c k in to th e v e h ic le a n d d ro v e o ff to ta k e Ha n c oc k to th e h o sp ita l. K.M.,

p u lle d o v e r a fe w b lo c k s a wa y , h o we v e r, a n d c a lle d 9 1 1 b e c a u se Ha nc o c k h a d

sto pp e d b re a th in g

. Ap pe lle e to ld th e GBI a g e n t th a t a ft e r t h e sh o o tin g h e

d ro p p e d th e g u n a n d th o u g h t a b o u t fle e in g , b u t th a t h e u ltim a te ly we n t in sid e th e

h o u se , wh e re p o lic e a rre ste d h im

. Wh e n th e GBI a g e n t in te rv ie we d a p p e lle e ’s

fa th e r a t th e sc e ne , h e d e n ie d h a v in g a n y k n o wle d ge a b o u t a g u n o r t h e

wh e re a b o u ts o f su c h a g u n

. Wh e n a u th o ritie s c o n fro n te d a

p p e lle e ’s fa th e r a

se c o nd tim e , h o we v e r, h e le d th e m to a c ou sin ’s h o u se wh e re h e h a d ta k e n th e

g u n m in ute s a fte r th e sh oo tin g

.

Th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t t r i a l a nd su m m a riz e d a b o v e wa s su ffic ie n t to

a u th oriz e a ra tio n a l trie r o f fa c t to fin d a pp e l l e e g u i lty be y o n d a re a so n a b le

d o u bt o f th e c rim e s fo r wh ic h h e wa s c on v ic te d

. Ja c k so n v

. Virg in ia

, 4 4 3 U.S

.

3 0 7 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

2

. Th e S ta te c on te n ds th e t r i a l c o urt e rre d wh e n it g ra n te d a p p e lle e ’s

m o tio n fo r n e w tria l o n th e g ro u n d th a t tria l c o un se l re n d e re d in e ffe c tiv e

a ssista n c e wh e n h e fa ile d to o b je c t to c o mme n t s ma d e b y th e S ta te d u rin g

o p e n in g a rg u m e n t re fe re n c in g a p p e lle e ’s p re -a rre st sile nc e a n d fa ilu re to c om e

5fo rwa rd to p o lic e a fte r t h e s h o o tin g

. Th e re le va n t c o m m e n ts m a d e b y th e

p ro se c u to r d u rin g h is o p e n in g sta te m e n t we re a s fo llo ws:

• “ Th e e v id e n c e wi l l a lso b e th a t S te v e S im s n e v e r c a lle d th e

p o lic e a t a n y tim e , n e v e r c a lle d 9 1 1, n or d i d a n yb o d y

a sso c ia te d with h im

, no t to g e t h e lp fo r Mr. Ha n c oc k o r to

re p o rt wh a t h a d ju st h a

p p e n e d . He n e v e r c a lle d p olic e .”

• “ Yo u w ill h e a

r th a t a fte r th e sh oo tin g, Mr

. S i ms d id n ’t c a ll

9 1 1 o r th e po lic e .... Yo u will a lso h e a r th a t wh e n th e p o lic e

c a m e in Mr

. S i m s’ g ra n dm o th e r’s h o u se to c o m e fin d o u t
wh a t’s g o in g o n , h e d o e sn ’t sa y , l e t me t ell y o u wh a t’s

h a p p e n e d

. H e d o e s n ’ t s a y , I d id wh a t I h a d to d o. H e sa id

, wh a t’ s th is a ll a

b o u t. A m a n’s sh o t. Th e re ’s a m a n d e a d

. Th e re ’s a fa m ily m e m

b e r g o n e

. An d h e sa y s, wh a t’s th is a ll

a b o u t? ”

• "Th e e v id e n c e will b e th a t S te v e S im s w e n t in sid e , g o t th e

g u n , a n d c a m e b a c k

o u t, th a t h e wa sn ' t su p p o se d to p osse ss,

a n d k ille d S h a wn Ha n c o c k. S te v e Sim s n e v e r c a lle d th e

p o li c e t o g e t h e lp fo r S h a wn Ha n c o c k o r to te ll wh a t
h a p p e n e d

. He a tte m

p te d to a v oid re sp o n sib ility b y

p re te n d in g a s if he h a d n ' t sh o t a n yb o d y an d h e wa sn ' t re a lly

su re wh a t h a

p p e n e d

. An d

, a g a in

, th a t' s im p orta n t, b e c a

u se

w e ' re g o in g to b e a rg u in g to y o u th a t if Mr. Sim s wa n ts t o

c l a i m s e lf-d e fe n se , th e n y o u ju st la y it o u t. Yo u ju st te ll it

. Yo u te ll wh a t h a

p p e n e d . Th e re ' s no re a so n th a t y o u h a ve to
b e u n tru th fu l, th a t y o u c a n' t b e c a n d id ."

6Th e tria l c o u rt, c itin g to se v e ra l o f th is Co u rt’s p re c e d e nts in c lu d in g Ma llo ry v

.

S ta te

, 2 6 1 Ga

. 6 2 5 (4 0 9 S E2 d 8 3 9 ) (1 9 9 1 ), 5 im plic itly fo u nd th a t wh e n th e

p ro se c u to r m a d e th e a

b o v e -re fe re n c e d c o m

m e n ts, h e v io la te d th e “ b rig h t-lin e

ru le in Ge o rg ia ” th a t “ th e S ta te m a y n o t c o mme n t o n e ith e r a D e fe n d a n t’s

sile n c e prio r to a

rre st o r fa ilu re to c o m e fo rwa rd v olu n ta rily

. ” S a nd e rs v

. S ta te

,

2 9 0 Ga

. 6 3 7 (4 ) ( 7 2 3 SE2 d 4 3 6 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Th e tria l c o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t tria l

c o u n se l wa s d e fic ie n t, pu rsu a n t to S tric k la nd v. Wa sh in gto n , 4 66 U .S

. 6 6 8 (III)

(1 0 4 S Ct 2 0 5 2

, 8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ), fo r fa ilin g to ob je c t to th e c o m m e n ts a n d

th a t a p p e lle e wa s p re

ju d ic e d th e re fo re

.

In o rd e r to p re v a il o n a c l a im o f in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e o f c o u n se l,

a p p e lla n t

m u st sh o w c o u n se l' s p e rfo rm a nc e wa s d e fic ie n t a n d th a t th e d e fic ie nt p e rfo rm a n c e pre ju d ic e d h im to th e p o in t th a t a re a so na b le

p ro b a b ility e x ists th a t, b u t fo r c o un se l' s e rro rs, th e o u tc o m e o f th e tria l wo u ld h a v e b e e n diffe r e n t. A stro n g p re su m ptio n e x ists th a t

c o u n se l' s c o n d uc t fa lls with in th e b ro a d ra ng e o f p ro fe ssio n a l

c o n d u c t.

(Cita tio n a

n d p u n c tu a tio n om itte d .) P ru it t v

. S t a t e , 2 8 2 Ga

. 3 0

, 3 4 (4 ) (6 4 4

S E2 d 8 3 7 (2 0 0 7 ). Wh e th e r a tria l a tto rn e y re n de rs c o n stitu tio n a lly in e ffe c tiv e

5 Mallory has b een o verruled on g rounds unrelated to this c ase. See Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 6 (515 SE2d 155) (5) (1999).

7a ssista n c e is a m ix e d q u e stio n o f la w a n d fa c t. Hu le tt v

. S ta te

, 2 9 6 Ga

. 4 9 (5 )

(7 6 6 S E2 d 1 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Wh e n re v ie w in g a tria l c o u rt’s d e c isio n to g ra n t a m o tio n

fo r n e w tr i a l b a se d o n in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e o f c o u n se l, we d e fe r to th e tria l

c o u rt’s fin d in g s o f fa c t u n le ss c le a rly e rro ne o u s, b ut o we n o su c h d e fe re n c e to

its c o n c lu sio n s o f la w wh ic h we a p p ly in d e p e n d e n tly to th e fa c ts. Id

. ; S ta te v

.

Wo rsle y , 2 9 3 Ga . 3 15

, 3 2 4 (7 4 5 S E2 d 6 1 7 ) (3 ) (2 0 1 3 ). 6

a

. Th e S ta te c o n te n d s th e tria l c o urt e rre d b e c a use th e c o m m e n ts a t issu e

d id no t v io la te Ma llo ry , su p ra , o r its p ro g e n y , a nd so th e re wa s n o v a lid ba sis fo r

tria l c o u n se l to o b

je c t o r b e fo u n d d e f

i c i e n t i n h is p e rfo rm a n c e

. We disa g re e

.

S in c e Ma llo ry wa s d e c id e d in 1 99 1 , th is Co u rt h a s u n e q u iv oc a lly h e ld :

It is a b rig h t-lin e ru le in Ge o rg ia th a t th e S ta te m ay no t c om m e nt o n

e ith e r a d e fe n d a n t' s sile n c e p rio r to a rre st o r fa ilu re to c om e fo rwa rd

v o lu n ta rily

. [Cits.] F in d in g su c h c om m e nts to b e fa r m o re

p re ju d ic ia l th a n p ro b a tiv e , th is C o urt h a s d e te rm in e d th a t th e y a re

n o t to be p e rm itte d e v e n in situ a tio n s in w h ic h th e d e fe n da n t h a s n o t

re c e iv e d Mira n d a wa rn in g s o r ta k e s th e sta n d i n h i s o wn d e fe n se

. [Cit.]

S a n de rs v. S ta te

, 2 9 0 Ga

. 6 3 7 (4 ) (7 2 3 S E2 d 4 36 ) (2 01 2). Th e fa c t th a t a p p e lle e

n e v e r in v o ke d h is rig ht to sile n c e u po n b e in g a rre ste d a n d su b je c t to

6 The State’s citation to State v. J ames, 292 Ga. 440 (738 SE2d 601) (2013) is inapplicable

because that case only involved review of a question of law, not a mix ed question o f law and fact

such as a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

8in te rro g a tio n d o e s n o t n e c e ssa rily v itia te th is ru le

. 7 M a ll o ry fo c u se s o n

c o m m e n ta ry on a d e fe n d a n t’s c o n d u c t b e twe e n th e tim e o f th e c rim e a n d p rio r

to a rre st. Th e c a se s c ite d b y th e S ta te to arg u e th a t M a llo ry d o e s n o t a p p ly a re

d istin g u is h a

b le in a sm u c h a s th e y c o n c e rn c o m m e n ta ry o r q u e stio n in g b y th e

S ta te e x p lo rin g in c o n siste n c ie s in a d e fe n d a n t ’ s p re -tria l sta te m e n ts to

a u th oritie s. Se e , e

. g ., Ru sh v

. S ta te

, 29 4 Ga

. 3 8 8 (2 ) (a ) (7 5 4 S E2 d 6 3 ) (2 0 1 4);

Jo h n so n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 2 Ga

. 7 8 5 (3 ) (7 4 1 S E2 d 6 2 7 ) (2 0 1 3 ); Gily a rd v

. Sta te

, 2 8 8

Ga

. 80 0 (2 ) (7 0 8 SE2 d 32 9 ) (2 0 1 1 ); S trin g e r v

. S t a t e , 2 8 5 Ga

. 8 42 (4 ) (6 8 4

S E 2 d 5 9 0 ) (2 0 0 9 ); Mc Mic h e n v

. S ta te

, 2 6 5 Ga

. 5 98 (1 1) (a ) (4 5 8 S E2 d 8 3 3 )

(1 9 9 5 ). Th e c o m m e n ts a t issu e h e re a re n o t lim ite d to n o tin g in c o n siste n c ie s in

a p p e lle e ’s p re -tria l sta te m e n ts to a u th o ritie s. Ra t h e r t h e c o m m e n ts e x p re ssly

e m p h a siz e th a t a

p p e lle e fa ile d to c a ll p o lic e a fte r h e sh o t Ha n c o c k a n d p rio r to

b e i n g a rre ste d

. Th is v io la te d th e b rig h t-lin e ru le of M a llo ry

. S e e Wilso n v

.

S ta te , 2 9 5 Ga . 8 4 (3 ) (7 5 7 S E2 d 8 2 5 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

7 To the ex tent Rog ers v. State, 290 Ga. 401 (721 SE2d 864) (2012); Gily ard v

. State, 288 Ga.

800 (708 SE2d 329) (2011); String er v. State, 2 85 Ga. 842 (684 SE2d 5 90) (2009 ) ; o r a n y o ther opin i o n by the appellate courts of this state may b e interpreted to h old that Mallory never applies when a defendant has not invoked his rig ht to remain silent, such interpretation is disapproved.

9At th e m otio n fo r n e w tria l h e a rin g , tria l co u n s e l t e stifie d h is fa ilu re to

o b je c t to th e p ro se c u to r’ s i mp r o p e r op e n in g c om m e n ts wa s a n o v e rsig h t

u n re la te d to a n y tria l stra te g y

. Th e tria l c o u r t w a s c o rre c t in d e te rm in in g th a t

tria l c o u n se l re n d e re d d e fic ie n t p e rfo rm a n c e w h en h e fa ile d to o b je c t to su c h

im p ro p e r c o m m e n ts. Th o m a s v

. S ta te

, 2 8 4 Ga

. 64 7 (3 ) (a ) (6 7 0 S E2 d 4 2 1 )

(2 0 0 8 ) (“ Be c a

u se th e pro se c u to r' s c on d u c t v io la te d Ma llo ry v

. S ta te

, su pra ,

c o u n se l' s p e rfo rm a n c e wa s d e fic ie n t to th e e x te n t h e d id n o t ob je c t.” ); La m

ple y

v . S ta te , 2 8 4 Ga

. 3 7 (2 ) (b ) (6 6 3 S E2 d 1 8 4) (2 0 0 8 ). 8

b . In su p p o rt o f its fin d in g o f p re ju d ic e , th e tria l c o u rt sta te d :

He re , th e Distric t Atto rn e y ’s c o m m e n ts d u rin g op e n in g sta te m e n ts

e n c o u ra g e d th e ju ry to v ie w [a pp e lle e ’s] c o m m e n ts a n d a c tio ns a s in d ic a tio ns o f h is gu ilt. [Ap p e lle e ’s] d e fe n se re lie d o n th e p re m ise

th a t h e a c te d in se lf d e fe n se a n d wa s ju sti f i e d in h is a c tio n s. Ev id e n c e p re se nte d a t tria l sh o we d th a t th e v ic tim

, wh o wa s 6 [fe e t]

5 [in c he s] ta ll a n d w e i g h e d 3 5 7 p o u n d s, wa s m u c h la rg e r th a n [ a p p e l l e e ]. Th e in c id e n t o c c u r r e d o u t s i d e [ a p p e l l e e ’ s ]

g ra n d m o th e r’s h o me w h e re h e liv e d

. [Ap p e lle e ’s] fa th e r a n d

g ra n d m o th e r we re in th e h o u se

. Ev id e n c e w a s a lso in tro d u c e d th a t

8 W e n ote that, while the prosecutor’s comments reg arding appellee’s failure to contact police after shooting the victim a nd prior to arrest were improper, any commentary or questioning by the

State concerning appellee’s failure to contact police p rior to shooti n g t h e v i c t i m , is n ot barred by Mallory and its prog eny

. Therefore, the prosecutor’s c omments during his closing arg ument to the

effect that appellee, a fter the phy sical altercation with Hancock

, twice walked past a phone in his

g randmother’s h ouse when r etrieving the g un used during the shooting and did not use the phone or take any other a ction to contact police about Hancock or K.M. and h er other companions being on his g randmother’s property in the middle of the nig ht, were not improper.

10th e two ha d a n a lte rc a tio n prio r to th e n ig h t of th e sh o o tin g a n d th a t
th e v ic tim h a d b e e n to ld n o t to re tu rn to th e p ro p e rty

. Ad d itio n a lly

, th e re wa s e v id e n c e th a t th e v ic tim p u n c h e d [a pp e lle e ] se v e ra l tim e s b e fo re th e v ic tim wa s sh o t. Th e re wa s c o nflic tin g e v id e nc e wh e th e r [a p p e lle e ] a c te d in se lf-d e fe n se ; a n d th e Distric t Atto rn e y ’s

c o m m e n ts d u rin g op e n in g sta te m e n ts, in sin u a tin g [a pp e lle e ’s] p re

a rre st sile n c e a nd fa i l u r e to c o m e fo rwa rd in d ic a te d h e d id n o t a c t
in se lf-d e fe n se , p o ssib ly in flu e n c e d th e v e rd ic t. [Cit.] Ultim a t e ly

, th e Distric t Atto rn e y ’s c o m m e n ts m a y h a v e e n c o u ra g e d th e ju ry to

v ie w [a p p e lle e ’s] sile n c e an d a c tio ns a s in d ic a tio n s o f h is g u ilt,

p re ju d ic e d th e d e fe n se , a n d c re a te d a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t th e

o u tc o m e o f th e tria l c o u ld h a ve b e e n d iffe re n t.

Th is a n a ly sis is so u n d. Ap p e lle e ’s so le d e fe n se wa s ju stific at i o n

. Th e

p ro se c u to r’s re p e a te d im

p ro p e r c o m m e n ts a t th e ve ry be g in n in g of th e tria l le ft

th e ju ry with th e in itia l im p re ssio n th a t a

p p e lle e c o u ld b e fo u n d g u ilty b a se d o n

h is fa ilu re to c on ta c t p o lic e a fte r th e sh oo tin g. S u c h a n in fe re nc e o f g u ilt is wh a t

o u r ru lin g in Ma llo ry w a s d e sig n e d to p r e v e n t. S e e Co llin s v

. S ta te

, 2 8 9 Ga

.

6 6 6

, 6 6 8 (7 1 5 S E2 d 1 3 6 ) (2 0 1 1 ). It is n o t u n re a so n a b le to su rm ise th a t su c h a n

in itia l im p re ssio n o f g u ilt lik e ly ta in te d th e e n tire tria l. Also

, u p o n r e v i e w in g

th e re c o rd

, we a g re e with th e tria l c o urt’s a sse ssm e n t th a t th e e v id e n c e p re se n te d

o n th e se lf-d e fe n se issu e wa s so m e wh a t c o n flic tin g 9 su c h th a t th e ju ry m a y h a v e

9 W itnesses d iffered as to whether there was a second altercation after appellee came back out
with the g un o r whether appellee simply came out w ith the g un and fired. T h ere was also conflicting evidence as to whether appellee was injured during his altercation with Hancock.

11b e e n in flu e n c e d to a p p e lle e ’s d e trim e n t b y th e p ro se c u to r’s im p ro p e r c o m

m e n t s

.

Ac c o rd in g ly

, we will no t d istu rb t h e tria l c o u rt’s fin d in g o f p re ju d ic e in th is

c a se

.

3

. F in a lly

, we n ote th a t Ma llo ry wa s d e c id e d n o t o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

g ro u n d s b u t ra th e r b a se d o n fo rm e r OCGA § 2 4 -3 -3 6

. Se e Ma llo ry , su p ra , 2 6 1

Ga

. a t 6 3 0

. Wh e n th is c a se is re trie d

, th e n e w Ev id e n c e Co d e will a pp ly

. We

e x p re ss n o o p in i o n a b o u t th e c o n tin u in g v a lid ity o f Ma llo ry u n d e r th e n e w

Ev id e nc e Co d e

. Se e R o m e r v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 3 3 9

, 3 4 2

– 3 4 3 & n

. 4 ( 7 4 5 S E2 d

6 3 7 ) (2 01 3 ).

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

12