FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, M ERCI ER and M A RKLE, 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

A ugust 19, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 2 A1 10 0 . LAW SON v

. THE STATE.

D I LLA R D , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Fo l l owi n g tri al

, a ju ry co n v i ct ed Mi ch ael Laws o n o n o ne co u n t o f ag g rav at ed

ch i l d m o l es t at io n. O n ap p eal

, Laws o n co n ten d s th e t ri al co u rt erred i n (1 ) ad m i t t i n g

h i s p ri o r co n v i ct i on s fo r i m p each m en t p u rp o s es ; (2 ) d en y i n g h i s ri g h t t o b e p res en t

at cri t i cal s t ag es o f h i s t ri al b y e x c l u d i n g h i m fro m ben ch co n feren ces ; an d (3 )

d en y i n g h i s cl ai m th at h i s tri al co u n s el ren d ered i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce b y fai l i n g to

o b ject t o i m p ro p er q u es t i o n in g b y t h e St at e. Fo r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h i n f r a

, we affi rm

.

Vi ewed i n th e li g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o th e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, 1 t h e reco rd s ho ws t h at

o n J a n u a r y 11

, 2 0 1 1

, t h en el ev en -y ear-o l d K

. L. was at h er gran d m o t h er’ s h o u s e

t ak i n g a n ap w h en s h e awo k e t o fi n d L aws o n —wh o prev i o u s l y d at ed her m o t h er an d

1 S ee, e.g

. , Li b ri v. S t a t e , 3 4 6 Ga. Ap p . 4 2 0 , 4 2 1 (8 1 6 SE2 d 4 1 7 ) (2 0 1 8 ).was p res um ed to b e h er fat h er— i n t h e b ed ro o m wi th h er. Laws o n p i n ned K. L. t o t h e

b ed

, rem o v ed h er u n d erwear, an d p u t hi s p en i s i n h er v ag in a. Aft er e ja c u l at i n g,

L a w s on d res s ed an d l eft t h e b ed ro o m

, w arn in g K. L. n ot t o t el l an y o n e ab o u t wh a t

h ap pen ed

. Bu t t h e d ay aft er t h e as s au l t

, K

. L.’ s m o t h er n ot i ced th at s h e was wal k i n g

o d d l y an d s eem ed t o be i n p ai n. An d wh en as k ed by h er m o t her wh at was wro n g wi th

h er, K. L. ad m i t t ed h er v ag i n a w a s s wo ll en an d t hat i t was pai n fu l t o u ri n at e. Her

m o th er t h en as k ed i f an y o n e h ad s ex u al l y as s au l t ed h er, an d K. L

. i n i t i al l y accu s ed

h er t een ag ed co u s i n o f d o in g s o

.

Im m ed i at el y

, K. L.’ s m o t h er t o o k h er t o a h os p it al

, an d a p h y s i ci an co n d u ct ed

a s ex u al as s au lt ex am i n at i o n

, d u ri n g wh i ch he o b s erv ed t hat h er v ag i n a was s wo l l en

,

b ru i s ed

, an d co n t ai n ed a w h it i s h d i s ch arg e b el iev ed t o b e s em en

. Ad d i t i o n al l y

, as p art

o f t h e ex am i n at i o n

, t he ph y s i ci an co l l ect ed s am p l es fo r DNA an al y s i s

. Sh o rt l y

t h ereaft er, an i n v es t i g at or fro m t h e s h eri ff’ s o ffi ce co l l ect ed DNA s am p l es fro m K.

L.’ s co us i n fo r an al y s i s

. An d wh en fo ren s i c tes t in g o f t h os e s am pl es d i d n o t m at ch

t h e s am p les p ro v i d ed b y h er co u s i n

, K. L. ad m i t t ed s h e l i ed i n im p l i cat i n g h i m an d

d i v u l g ed t h at i t was act u al ly Laws o n wh o sex u al l y a s s a u l t ed h er. Fu rt h er fo ren s i c

an al y s i s i n d i cat ed t h at t h e D NA fro m t he s em en co ll ect ed fro m K. L.’ s s ex u al as s au l t

ex am i n at i o n m at ch ed a DNA s am p l e t h e i n v es t i g at or o b t ai n ed fro m Laws o n

.

2Su b s e q u en t l y

, t h e St at e ch arg ed Laws o n

, v i a i n d i ct m en t

, wi t h o n e co u n t o f

ag g rav at ed ch i l d m o l e s t at i o n an d o n e co u n t o f i n ces t

. 2 Th e cas e t h en pro ceed ed to

t ri al

, d u ri n g wh i ch th e St at e p res en t ed t h e afo rem en t io n ed ev i d en ce. Aft er th e St at e

res t ed

, Laws o n i nfo rm ed t h e t ri al co u rt th at h e wan t ed t o t es t i fy

. An d at t hi s p o i n t

, t h e

co u rt h eard arg u m en t as to wh et h er t h e St at e co u l d ad m i t t w o o f Laws o n ’ s p ri o r

co n vi ct i o n s fo r i m

p each m en t p u rp os es

, u l ti m at el y ru l i n g t h a t t h e ev i d en ce was

ad m i s s i b l e. Laws o n n o n et h el es s t es t ifi ed an d

, in ad d i t i o n t o de ny ing a ny w r ongdo i n g,

p ro v id ed an ex p l an at i o n as t o h ow h i s DNA was fo u n d in K. L.’ s v ag i n a. Sp eci fi cal l y

,

h e cl ai m ed t h at th e m o rn i n g o f t h e al l eg ed i n ci d en t

, h e an d hi s g irl fri en d h ad

i n t erco u rs e at K. L.’ s g ran dm o t h er’ s h o u s e, an d aft erward s

, h e p u t o n a p ai r o f p ajam a

p an ts wh il e n o t w eari n g an y u n d erwear. L at er, aft er h e ch an ged cl ot h es

, h e s aw K. L.

weari n g t h o s e sam e p ajam a p an t s

. Th en

, b efo re t h e St at e b eg an i t s cro s s ex am i n at i o n

o f Laws o n

, t h e t ri al co u rt i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry t h at Laws o n ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s were

o n l y b ei n g ad m i t t ed fo r i m peach m en t p u rp o s es

. Aft erward s, t h e St at e cro s s ex am i n ed

Laws o n

, an d h e ack n o wl ed g ed t h at he had p rev i o us l y b een co n v i ct ed o f ag g rav at ed

as s au l t an d p os s es s io n o f co cai n e wi t h i n ten t t o d i s t ri b u t e.

2 Th e St at e l at er s u cces s fu l l y m o ved fo r an en t ry o f n ol l e p r os eq u i as t o t h e

i n ces t ch arg e i n l i gh t o f t h e fact t h at DNA an al y s i s i n d i cat ed Laws o n an d K. L. were

n o t b i o l o g i cal rel at i v es

.

3A t t h e co n cl u s i o n o f t h e t ri al

, t he ju ry fo u n d Laws o n g u i l ty o n t h e ch a r g e o f

ag g rav at ed ch i l d m o l es t at i on

. Th ereaft er, Laws on o b t ai n ed n ew co un s el an d fi l ed a

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

, in w h ich h e a r g u ed

, i n t er a l i a

, t h at hi s t ri al co u n s el ren d ered

ine f f e c tive a ss i s t an ce. Bu t aft er co n d u ct in g a h eari n g

, i n wh i ch Laws on ’ s t ri al co unse l

t es t i fi ed , t h e t ri al co u rt d en ied Laws o n’ s m ot i o n . Th i s ap p eal fo l l o ws

.

1

. Laws o n fi rs t co nt en d s t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n ad m i tt i ng h i s pri o r co n v i ct i on s

i n t o ev i d en ce fo r i m

p each m en t p urp o s es . W e d i s ag ree.

OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 0 9 (a) (1 ) p r o v i d e s

, i n p art

, t h at ev id en ce an accu s ed (wh o

t es t i fi es ) h a s b een co n v i ct ed of a cri m e p u n i s h ab l e b y d eat h o r i m p ri s on m en t in

ex ces s of o n e y ear “ s h al l b e ad m i t t ed i f t he co u rt d et erm i n es t h at t h e p ro b at i v e v al u e

o f a d m i t t i n g t h e ev i d en ce o u t wei g h s i t s p reju d i ci al effect t o t h e accu s ed .”

Fu rt h erm o re, t h e i n t ro d u ct i o n o f ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r fel o n y c o n v i c t i o n i s “ i n t en d ed

t o affo rd t h e ju ry a b as i s t o in fer t h at t h e wi t n es s’ s ch aract er i s s u ch t h at h e wo u l d b e

l es s l i k el y t h an t he av era g e t r u s t wo rt hy ci t i zen t o b e t ru t h fu l i n hi s t es t i m o n y

. ” 3

Si m p l y p u t

, t h e i n t ro d uct i o n o f ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r cri m e i s “ a g en eral at t ack o n t h e

3 Ro b i n s o n v

. S t at e

, 33 6 G a. Ap p. 62 7

, 6 3 1 (3 ) (7 85 SE2 d 3 04 ) (2 0 1 6 )

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

4cred i b i l i t y of t h e wi t n es s .” 4 M o reo v er, u nd er o u r p ri o r ev i d en ce co de, 5 G eo rg i a t ri al

co u rt s u n d ert ak i n g t h e b al an ci n g t es t t o d et erm in e i f a p ri o r c o n v i ct i o n was

ad m i s s i b l e fo r i m

peach m en t p urp o s es were t o co n s i der fact o rs i n cl u di n g :

(1 ) t he k i n d o f fel o ny i nv o l v ed an d i t s i m p each m en t v al u e, (2 ) t h e t i m e

o f t he co n v ict i o n an d t h e d efen d an t ’ s su b s eq u en t h i s t o r y

, (3 ) th e

s i m i l ari t y b et ween t h e p as t cri m e an d t h e ch arg ed cri m e (l es t ev i d en ce

o f a s im i lar cri m e crea t e a n u n accep t ab l e ri s k of p reju d i ce); (4 ) th e

i m p o rt an ce o f t h e defen d an t ’ s t es ti m o ny ; an d (5 ) t h e cen t ral i t y o f th e

cred ib i l i t y

i s s u e. 6

An d wh i l e o ur cu rren t ev i d e n c e c o d e d o es n ot req u i re tri al co u rt s t o en gag e i n t h i s

t es t

, t h es e fact o rs co n t i n u e t o b e a u s e f u l g u i d e i n m ak i n g s u ch a d et erm i n at i o n

b ecau s e fed era l c o u r t s h av e em p l o y ed t hem u n d er a pri o r v ers i o n o f t h e fed eral

4 I d

. (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); Ro nal d L. Carl s o n an d M i ch ael Sco t t Carl s o n,

Carl s o n o n Ev i d en ce, p. 3 1 2 (6 t h ed

. 2 0 1 8 ) (“ Ru l e 6 0 9 (a) (1 ) co n cern s i m p each m en t

o f a wi t n es s ’ t ru th fu l n e s s w i t h ev i d en ce o f a cri m e t h at i s pu n is h ab le b y

. . . i m p ri s o n m en t i n ex ces s o f o n e y ear u nd er t h e law w h i ch t he wi t n es s was co nv i ct ed .”).

5 S ee fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -9 -8 4 .1 (2 0 0 6).

6 Ro b i n s o n

, 3 3 6 G a. Ap p

. at 6 3 1 -3 2 (3 ) (p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed ); see Cl a y v.

S t a t e

, 2 90 Ga. 8 2 2

, 8 35 -3 6 (3 ) (B) (7 25 SE2 d 2 6 0 ) (2 01 2 ) ( e x pl ai n i n g t h at fi v e

fact ors o u t l i n e t he b as i c co n cern s rel ev an t t o t h e req u i red b al an ci n g i n d et erm i n i n g

wh et h er t o ad m i t a d efen dan t ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n fo r i m p each m en t ).

5ev i d en ce ru l e t h at i s su b st an t iv el y s i m i l ar t o o ur n ew ev i d en t i ary ru l e. 7 In an y ev en t

,

a t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n t o “ ad m i t a d efen d an t ’ s p ri or co n v i ct i on u n der OCGA § 2 4 -6

-

6 0 9 (a) (1 ) i s rev i ewed fo r an ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n

. ” 8

In t h i s m at t er, aft er h eari n g arg u m en t fro m th e p art i es

, t h e tri al co u rt

d et erm i n ed t h e p ro b at iv e v al ue o f Laws on ’ s t w o pri o r co nv i ct i o ns ou t wei g h ed an y

p reju d i ci al effect

. In do i n g s o

, t h e co u rt no t ed t h at t h e p ri o r co n vi ct i o n s

— ag g rav at ed

as s au l t an d p o s s es s i o n o f co cai n e wi th i n t en t t o d i st ri b u t e

— w e r e n ot cri m es o f

d i s h o n es ty b u t t h ey were al s o n o t s i m i l ar in n at u re t o th e o ffen s e fo r wh i ch Laws o n

7 S ee Un it ed S t a t es v. Pr es t o n

, 6 0 8 F2 d 6 2 6, 6 3 9 n

. 1 7 (5 t h Ci r.1 9 7 9 )

(d i s cu s s i ng fact o rs t o b e co n s id ered i n bal an ci n g wh et h er to ad m i t a defen d an t ’ s p ri o r

co n vi ct i o n fo r i m

p each m en t ); Ro b i n s o n

, 3 36 G a. A p p

. at 6 3 2 (3 ) (ex pl a i n i n g t h at

fed eral co u rt s h av e em p lo y ed a b al an ci ng t e s t co n si d eri n g s ev eral o f t h e

afo rem en t i o n ed fact ors i n d et erm i n i n g t h e a d m i ss i b i l i t y o f p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s fo r

i m p each m en t ); acco r d Jo h n s o n v. S t a t e

,

_ _ G a

. A p p

.

_

_ (8 73 S.E.2 d 7 0 4

, 7 0 8 )

(2 0 2 2); see a l

s o S amu el s v. S ta t e

, 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. 8 19

, 8 2 3 (1 ) (7 8 3 SE2 d 3 44 ) (2 0 1 6 )

(n o t i ng t h at

, g i v en th e s i m i l ari t y b et ween Geo rg i a’ s cu rren t Ev i d en ce Co d e an d t h e

Fed eral Ru l es o f Ev i den ce, i t i s p ro p er t h at we “ g i v e co n s id erat i o n an d g reat wei g ht

t o co ns t r u c t i o ns p l aced o n t he Fed eral Ru l es b y th e fed eral co u rt s ” (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed )).

8 Ro b i n s o n

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 3 1 (3 ); s ee Jo n es v. St a t e

, 3 52 Ga. A p p

. 3 8 0

, 3 8 8

(2 ) (b ) (8 3 4 SE2 d 8 81 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (n o t i n g t h at a t ri al co u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s m u st b e

affi rm ed ab s en t an ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n ).

6was b ei n g t ri ed

. 9 Ad d i ti on al l y

, wh i l e n o t s p eci fi cal l y n o t ed b y t h e t ri al co u rt

,

Laws o n ’ s cred ib i l i t y v ers u s t h at o f K. L. was cert ai n l y i m po rt an t, es p eci al l y g i v en K.

L.’ s in i t i al accu s at i o n ag ai ns t h er co u s i n an d Laws o n ’ s at t em p t t o ex p l ai n h o w h i s

s em en was fo u n d i n s i d e K. L.’ s v ag i na. Fu rt h erm o re, b efo re th e St at e cro s s ex am i n ed

Laws o n

, t h e t ri al co u rt i ns t ru ct ed t h e j u ry th at h i s p ri or co n v i ct i o n s were o n l y b ei n g

ad m i t t ed fo r i m

p each m e n t p u rp o s es ; an d d uri n g i t s j u ry ch arg e, th e co u rt fu rt h er

i n s t ru ct ed t h at cred ib i l i t y an d wh et h er a wi t n es s was i m p e a c h ed was s o lel y fo r t h e

ju r y t o d eci d e. Acco rd i n g l y

, t h e t ri al co urt d i d n ot ab u s e it s d i s cret i o n i n ad m i t t i n g

Laws o n ’ s p ri o r co n v ict i o n s i nt o ev i d en ce fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f gen eral l y at t ack i n g h i s

cred i b i l i t y

. 1 0

9 S ee Ro b i n so n

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 63 1 -3 2 (3 ) (ex pl ai ni n g t h at cri m es i nv o l v i n g

d i s h o n es ty are s u b

ject ed t o a m o re l en i en t tes t wh en d et erm i n i n g ad m i s s i o n fo r

i m p each m en t pu rp o s es b u t th at cri m es si m i l ar t o t he o ffen s e at i s s u e are s u b ject ed to

m o re s cru t i n y

— l e s t ev id en ce o f a s i m i l ar cri m e creat e an u naccep t ab le ri s k o f

p reju d i ce— wh en d et erm i ni n g ad m i s s i o n fo r t h at s am e p u rp o s e).

1 0 S ee Jo n es

, 3 5 2 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 8 9-9 1 (2 ) (b ) (ex p l ai n i n g t h at p ro b at i v e v al u e

o f d efen d an t ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct io n o u t wei g h ed ri s k o f u n fai r p reju di ce w h en d efen d an t ’ s

t es t i m o ny t h at h e was n ot res p o n s i b l e fo r at t ack ag ai n s t vic tim ren d ered h i s cred i b i l i t y

cen t ral t o t ri al ’ s o u t co m e an d gi v en t h at t ri al co u rt red u ced ri s k o f u n fai r p reju d i ce

b y i n s t ru ct i n g j u ry t h at p ri o r co n v i ct i o n was b ei n g ad m i t t ed so l el y fo r ju ry t o co n s i d er

i n d et erm i n i n g h i s t ru t h fu l n es s ); Jo r d an v. S t a t e

, 3 44 Ga. Ap p

. 2 6 7

, 2 7 2 -7 3 (5 ) (8 1 0

SE2 d 15 8 ) (2 0 18 ) (h ol d i n g t h at ad m i s s i o n o f d efen d an t’ s p r i o r co n vi ct i o n s fo r

b u rg lary an d t h eft fo r p u rp o s es o f i m p e a ch m en t was n o t ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n in

p ro s ecu ti o n fo r arm ed ro b b ery g i v en t h at d efen d an t p l aced h is cred i b il i ty d i rect l y at

72

. Laws o n al s o co n t en d s t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i n g h i s ri g h t t o b e p res en t

at cri ti cal s t ag es o f h i s t ri al b y ex cl ud i n g h i m fro m s ev eral b en ch co n feren ces

. Ag ai n,

we d i sag ree.

It i s wel l s et t led t h at “ [e] m b o d i ed wi th in t h e co n s t i t u t io n al ri g h t t o t h e co u rt s

i s a c r i m i n al d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t t o b e p res en t an d s ee an d h ear al l t h e pro ceed i n g s

wh i ch are h ad ag ai n s t h i m o n t h e t ri al b e f o r e th e Co u rt

. ” 1 1 In fact

, t h e ri g h t t o b e

p res en t is “ a fu n d a m en t al ri g h t an d a fo un d at io n al as pect o f d u e p ro ces s o f l aw.” 1 2

i s su e by t es t i fy i ng at t ri al t h at h e t o o k no p art i n t h e arm ed ro bb ery ); Ro b i n s o n

, 3 3 6

Ga. A p p

. at 6 3 1 -3 2 (3 ) (h ol di n g t h at b ecau s e cred ib i l i ty o f defen d an t an d v ict i m was

c e n t ral i s s u e o f t h e cas e an d p rev i ou s co n v ict i o n s w ere n o t s ub s tan t i al l y s im i l a r t o

al l eg at i o n s i n i n s t a n t cas e, pro b at i v e val u e o f ev i den ce o u t wei g h ed t h e p reju d i ci al

effect t o defen d an t

, an d t h erefo re ev i d en ce o f d efen d an t ’ s p rev i o u s co n vi ct io n s were

ad m i s s i b l e fo r g en eral i m

p each m en t p u rp o s es i n ag g rav at ed as s au l t

, cri m in al d am ag e

t o pro pert y

, an d cru el t y t o ch i l d ren pro s ecu t io n ); Carl so n

, s u p ra n o t e 4 p

. 3 1 3 (“ On ce

a cri m in al d efen d an t ch o o ses t o t es t i fy

, h e p l aces hi s cred i b i li t y i n is s u e as d o es an y

wi t n es s

. . . . Fel o n i es n o t i n v o lv i n g d i s ho n es ty are ad m i tt ed if t h e co u rt d et erm i n es

t h at t h e p ro b at i v e v al u e o f ad m i t t i n g t h is ev i d en ce o u t wei gh s it s p reju di ci al effect to

t h e accu s ed .” (fo o t no t es o m i t t ed )).

1 1 W a r d v. S t at e

, 2 8 8 G a

. 6 4 1

, 6 4 5 (4 ) (7 0 6 SE2 d 43 0 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ); a cco r d Br e w n e r v. S ta t e

, 30 2 Ga. 6

, 9 (II) (8 0 4 SE2 d 9 4 )

(2 0 1 7); Ro b er t

s on v. S t a t e

, 3 5 9 G a

. A p p

. 3 2 6

, 3 3 0 (2 ) (8 5 7 SE2 d 4 8 5 ) (2 0 2 1 ); s ee

Ga. Co n s t

. Art

. I, S e c

. I

, P a r. XII (“ No p ers o n s h al l b e d ep ri v ed o f th e ri g h t to

p ro s ecu te o r d efen d

, ei t h er i n p ers o n o r b y an at t o rn ey

, th at p ers o n’ s o wn cau s e i n an y

o f t h e co u rt s o f t h i s s tat e.”).

1 2 H a mp t on v. S t at e

, 2 8 2 G a

. 4 9 0, 4 9 1 -9 2 (2 ) (a) (6 5 1 SE2 d 6 98 ) (2 0 0 7 );

a cco rd Ro b er t

s o n

, 3 5 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 3 0 (2 ); s ee a l s o Ten n es s ee v. La n e

, 5 4 1 U.S. 5 0 9,

8Th i s fu n d am en t al ri gh t “ at t ach es at an y s t ag e o f a cri m i n al p ro ceed i n g t hat i s cri t i cal

t o i t s o ut co m e if t h e d efen d an t ’ s p res en ce w o u ld co n tri b u t e t o t h e fai rn es s o f t h e

p r o c ed u re.” 1 3 An d Geo rg i a’ s ap p el l at e co u rt s h av e “ d et erm i n ed t h at a cri t i cal s t ag e

i n a cri m i n al p ro s ecu t i on i s o n e i n wh i ch a d efen d an t ’ s ri g h ts m ay b e l o s t, d efen s es

wai v ed

, p ri v i l eg es cl ai m ed o r wai v ed

, o r o n e i n w h i ch t h e o ut co m e o f t h e c a s e i s

s u b s t an t i al l y affect ed in so m e o t h er way .” 1 4 Bu t wh en co u n s el p art i ci p at es i n a b en ch

co n feren ce i n v o l v i n g p u rel y l eg al i s s u es

, “ t h e ri g h t t o b e p res en t i s no t im p l i cat ed .” 1 5

In t h i s cas e, Laws o n arg u es h e w as i m p erm i s s i bl y e x c l u d e d fro m nu m ero u s

b en ch co n feren ces an d was

, t h erefo re, d en ied h i s ri g h t t o be p res en t at cri t ical s t ag es

5 2 3 (IV) (1 2 4 SCt 1 9 7 8

, 1 5 8 LE2 d 8 2 0 ) (2 0 0 4 ) (“ Th e D u e Pro ces s Cl au se [o f t h e

Fo u rt een t h Am en dm en t ] an d t h e Co n fro n tat i o n Cl au s e o f th e Si x t h Am en dm en t

. . . b o t h g uaran t ee t o a cri m i n al d efen d an t

. . . t h e ri g h t t o b e p res en t at al l s t ag es o f t h e

t ri al wh ere h i s ab s en ce m ig ht fru s t rat e t h e fai rn es s o f t h e pro ceed i n g s .” (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed )).

1 3 Da ws o n v. S ta te

, 2 8 3 Ga. 3 1 5

, 3 21 -2 2 (5 ) (6 5 8 SE2 d 75 5 ) (2 0 0 8 )

(p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d Ro b er t s on , 3 59 Ga. Ap p . at 3 3 0 -3 1 (2 ).

1 4 Da ws o n

, 2 8 3 G a. at 3 2 2 (5 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d R o b er t s o n

, 3 5 9

Ga. Ap p . at 3 3 1 (2 ).

1 5 Reeves v. S t at e

, 3 0 9 Ga. 6 4 5

, 6 4 8 (2 ) (8 4 7 SE2 d 5 5 1) (2 0 2 0 ); a cco r d

Ro b er t so n

, 3 5 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 31 (2 ); s ee Br ewn er

, 30 2 Ga. at 1 0 (II) (“ [P] re-t ri al

h eari n g s an d b en ch co n feren ces p ert ai n i n g t o pu rel y l eg a l i s s u es

, su ch as t h e

ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f ev i den ce or ju ry i n s t ru ct io n s

, o rd i n ari ly do n o t i m p li cat e t h e ri g h t to

b e p res en t .”).

9o f t ri al . Bu t n o n e o f t h e b en ch co n feren ces were t ran s cri b ed , an d d u ri n g h i s m o t i o n

fo r n ew t ri al

, Laws o n’ s t ri al co u n s el o n l y o ffered g u es s es as t o w h at t h ey en t ai l ed

,

l eav i ng L aws o n w i t h n ot h i n g m o re t h an s p ecu l at i o n as t o wh at t he co n feren ces m i g ht

h av e co n cern ed

. An d i m po rt an t l y

, m ere sp ecu l at i o n as t o wh at m ay h a v e b e e n

d i s cu s s ed at a co n feren ce “ can n o t s erv e as t he b as i s fo r t h e gran t o f a n ew t ri al .” 1 6

Nev ert h el es s

, a r e v i ew of t h e d et ai l s o f th e s u bject co n feren ces

— t o t h e ex t en t

an y t h i n g can b e gl ean ed i n t he ab s en ce o f t ran s cri p t io n

— b el ies Laws o n’ s co n t en t i o n.

Th e fi rs t b en ch co nferen ce o ccu rred aft er vo i r d ir e bu t b efo re t he p art i es b eg an

s el ect i n g t h e j u ry

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, u p o n s t at in g t h e p ro ceed i n g s were back o n t h e reco rd

,

t h e t ri al co u rt req ues ted t hat co u n s el ap p ro ach , an d a v ery b ri ef co n feren ce en s u ed

,

aft er wh ich t h e co u rt ex p l ai n e d o n t h e reco rd th at i t wo u l d g i v e t h e p rel i m i n ary

ch arg e wh i l e co u ns el were rev iewi n g t h ei r n o t es t ak en d u ri n g vo i r d i r e . Lat er, aft er

ju ry s el ect i o n co n cl u d ed an d t h e t ri al co urt ex p l ai ne d t o t he p ro s p ect i v e j u ro rs t h at

t h e p art i es wo u l d fi ni s h wi t h th ei r sel ect i o ns an d t h en m an y p o o l m em b ers wo u l d b e

ex cu sed

, t h e co urt co n d u ct ed a s eco n d b en ch co n feren ce b efo re t h e n a m e s o f t h e

s el ect ed j u ro rs were cal l ed

. D u ri n g t h e h eari n g o n Laws o n ’ s m ot i on fo r n ew t ri al

, h i s

1 6 R eeves

, 3 09 G a. at 64 8 (2 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d Da u gh t i e v. S t a t e

, 2 9 7 Ga. 2 6 1

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

10t ri al co u n s el t es t i fi ed th at s h e co u l d n o t recal l i f s h e d is cu s sed b en ch co n feren ces wi th

Laws o n or wh at th e fi rs t co n feren ce i n v o lv ed

. Co un s el was n ot as k ed ab o u t t h e

s eco n d co n feren ce.

Th e l ack o f a t ran s cri pt o r t ri al co u n s el ’ s reco l l ect i o n n ot wi t h s tan d i n g

, Laws o n

arg u es t h o s e co n feren ces in vo l v ed ju ry -s el ect i o n i s su es an d t h at he s h o ul d h av e b een

i n cl u d ed b ecau s e “ p ro ceed i n g s at w h i ch t h e ju ry co m p o s i t i o n is s el ect ed o r ch an g ed

are cri t i cal s t ag es at wh ich t h e d efen d an t i s en t i t l ed t o b e p res en t .” 1 7 Bu t ev en i f we

as s u m ed

, fo r t h e s ak e o f arg u m en t

, t h at Laws o n ’ s sp ecu l at i o n i s co rrect

, “ [t ] h e ri g ht

t o b e p res en t i s wai v ed i f t h e d e f en dan t p ers o n al l y w ai v es i t in co u rt ; i f co u n s el

wai v es i t at t h e d efen d an t ’ s ex p res s d i rect i o n ; i f co u n s el wai ves it in op en co u rt wh i l e

t h e d efen d an t i s p res en t ; o r i f c o u n s e l wai v es i t an d t h e d efen d an t s u bs eq u en t l y

acq u ies ces i n t h e w ai ver.” 1 8 Here, no t h i n g i n t h e t ran s cri p t i n d i cat es t h at Laws o n was

a b s e n t d u ri n g an y p art o f vo i r d i r e an d

, th u s

, h e was i n a p o s i t i o n to h ear an y

arg u m en t s o r i s s u es p ert ai n i n g t o ju ry s el ect i o n

. An d n ei t h er Laws o n n o r hi s co u n s el

1 7 Za mo r a v. S t a t e

, 2 9 1 Ga. 5 1 2

, 5 1 8 (7 ) (b ) (7 3 1 SE2 d 6 58 ) (2 0 1 2 )

(p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed ); s ee Br ewn er

, 3 0 2 Ga. at 1 1 (II) (n ot i n g t h at d e f e n d a n t h as a

ri gh t t o b e p res en t wh en ju ry s el ect i o n i s s u es are b ei n g d eci d ed ).

1 8 Br ewn er , 3 0 2 Ga. at 1 1 (II) (p un ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

11v o i ced an y o b ject io n t o Laws o n ’ s ex cl u s io n fro m t h es e p art i cu lar b en ch co n feren ces

.

Co n s eq u en t l y , Laws on acq u i es ced i n h is o wn ab sen ce. 1 9

Th e t h i rd b en ch co n feren ce o ccu rred at th e co n cl u s i o n o f ju ry s el ect i o n

, wi th

t h e t ri al co u rt rem ark in g as fo ll o ws : “ Act u al ly

, ju ry s el ect i o n t o ok a l o t l es s t i m e t h an

I t h o u gh t i t was go i n g t o t ak e. W h y d o n ’ t we d o t h i s. W h y d o n’ t we h av e y o u

— l et m e

l et co un s el ap pro ach

, p l eas e. Let m e g et so m e real i n p u t q u i c k

. ” B as ed o n t h es e

co m m en t s

, t he co u rt ’s r e q u es t fo r co u n s el t o ap p ro ach s eem s t o hav e co n cern ed

s ch ed u l i n g

. Si m il arl y

, ju s t b efo re t h e St at e res t ed

, an d t h en j u s t aft er i t res t ed

, t h e t ri al

co u rt h el d ad d it i o n al b en ch co n feren ces t h a t ap p ear t o h av e co n cern ed s ch ed u l i n g

i s su es an d a q u es t io n fo r t h e co u rt rep o rt er. In fact

, d u ri n g t h e h eari n g o n hi s m o t i o n

1 9 Nes b y v. S t a t e

, 31 0 Ga. 7 5 7

, 7 5 9 -6 1 (2 ) (8 5 3 SE2 d 6 31 ) (2 0 21 ) (co n cl u d i n g

t h at ev en i f d efen d an t’ s ri g h t t o b e p res en t was i m p l i cat ed b y b en ch co n feren ce t h at

o ccu rred d u ri n g v oi r d i re, d efen d an t was i n co urt b efo re an d aft er b en ch co n feren ce,

was i n a p o s i t i o n t o h ear t he i s s u es t o wh i ch i t rel at ed an d d i s cu s s ed t h o s e i s su es wi th

h i s co u n sel

, rai s ed n o o b

ject i on t o co u n sel ’ s co n d u ct o r t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n o n t h e

i s su es

, an d

, t h us , acq u ies ced t o h i s ab s en ce); Mu rp h y v. S ta t e

, 2 9 9 Ga. 2 3 8, 2 4 2 (2 )

(7 8 7 SE2 d 7 2 1 ) (2 1 0 6 ) (h o l di n g t hat wh en t h e ap p el lan t w as aware o f t h e an n o u n ced

p ro ced ure fo r s el ect i n g a j u ry

, wi t n es s ed t h e ben ch co n feren ces

, an d h eard t h e

d i s cu s s i o n s co n cern i n g th e ch a l l e n g ed m em b ers ’ qu al i fi cat i o n s an d t h e ju d g e’ s

ru l i n gs

, b u t rem a i n e d s i l en t

, s h e acq u i es ced i n her ab s en ce fro m t he b en ch

co n feren ces ); Ja cks on v. S t a t e

, 2 7 8 G a. 23 5

, 2 3 7 (3 ) (5 99 SE2 d 1 2 9 ) (2 0 0 4) (h o l d i n g

t h at t h e d efen d an t s acq u i es ced i n t h e p ro ceed i n g s o ccu rri n g i n t h ei r ab sen ce “ wh en

t h ei r co u n s el m ad e n o o b j ect io n an d d efen d an t s t h ereaft er r e m a in ed s i l en t aft er t h e

s u b ject was b ro u g h t to t h ei r at t en t i o n ”).

12fo r n ew t ri al

, Laws o n ’ s t ri al co u n s el t es t i fi ed t h at sh e b el i ev ed t h e l at t er co n feren ce

i n v o l v ed s ch ed u l i n g

. An d as t h e Su p rem e Co urt o f Geo rg i a h as h el d , a d efen d an t ’ s

a b s en ce fro m b en ch co n feren ces i n v ol v i n g l o gi s t i cal m at t ers

— s u ch as t h e o rd er i n

wh i ch w i t n es s es w o ul d b e cal l ed an d wh en to t ak e b re a k s i n t h e t ri al

p ro ceed in g s

— d o es n ot v i ol at e t h e co n s t i t u t io n al ri gh t t o b e p res en t

. 2 0

As t o t h e rem ai n in g b en ch co n feren ces at i s s u e, n o n e i m p act ed Laws o n ’ s ri g ht

t o b e p res en t

. T h e fi rs t co n feren ce o ccu rred wh en t he St at e was q u es t i o n i n g t h e

s h eri ff’ s offi ce i nv es t i g at o r an d as k ed i f h e had t h e p erm i s s i o n fo rm s t o co l lect DNA

s am p l es fro m Laws o n an d K. L.’ s co us i n

. Aft er t h e i n v es ti gat o r res p o n d ed

affi rm at i v el y

, t h e St at e as k ed t o ap p ro ach

, a s h o rt ben ch co nferen ce en s u ed

, an d t h en

t h e St at e t en d ered t h e t wo fo rm s i n t o ev i d en ce.

Th e n ex t c o n f

eren ce t o o k p l ace d u ri n g Laws o n ’ s cro s s ex am i n at i o n o f t h e

Geo rg i a Bu reau of I n v e s t i g at i o n ’ s fo ren s i c b i o l o g i s t aft er hi s co u n s el as k ed t h e

2 0 S ee Br a d fo r d v. S t a t e

, 2 9 9 Ga. 88 0

, 8 8 2 -8 3 (4 ) (b ) ( 7 9 2 S E 2 d 6 8 4 ) (2 0 1 6 )

(n o t i ng t h at i f a b en ch co n feren ce o n l y co n cern s l o g i s t i cal i s s u es

, t h en a d efen d an t ’ s

ri gh t to b e p res en t i s n o t v i o l at ed ); Heywo o d v. S t a t e

, 2 9 2 G a. 7 7 1

, 7 7 3 -7 4 (3 ) (7 4 3

SE2 d 1 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (h o l d i ng t h at d efen d an t ’ s ab s en c e f r om be nc h c on feren ces i nv o l v i n g

l o g i s t ical m at t ers su ch as th e o rd er i n wh i ch wi t n es s es wo u l d be cal led an d wh en to

t ak e b reak s i n th e tri al p ro ceed i n g s d i d n o t v i o lat e h i s co n s t i t u t i o n al ri g h t t o b e

p res en t ); Za mo r a

, 2 9 1 Ga. at 5 18 (7 ) (b ) (s am e); Pa r ks v. St a t e

, 2 75 Ga. 3 20

, 3 2 4 (3 )

(5 6 5 SE2 d 4 4 7 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (s am e).

13wi t n es s w h en s h e fi rs t t es t ed t h e DNA s am p l es co l l ect ed d u ri n g K. L.’ s s ex u al as s au l t

ex am i n at i o n fo r s em en

. Th e St at e t h en as ked t o ap pro ach t h e b en ch

, an d fo l l o wi n g

a b ri ef co n feren ce, Laws o n ’ s co u n sel rep eat ed h er q ues t i o n

.

A few m o m en t s l at e r

, f

o l l o wi n g t h e co ncl u s io n of a reces s fo r l un ch an d

i m m ed i at el y b efo re t h e St at e cal l ed i t s fo ren s i c i n t erv i ewer t o tes t ify

, t h e t ri al co u rt

as k ed co u n s el t o ap p ro ach

. Aft er t h e co nferen ce co n cl u d ed

, t h e co u rt ex p l ai ned t o t h e

ju ry t h at t h e n ex t wi t n es s ’ s t es t i m o n y wo u l d al s o en t ai l v i ewi n g th ree fai rl y l en g t hy

v i d eo reco rd i n gs o f i n t erv i ews wi th K. L.

Lat er, d u ri n g t h e defen s e’ s cas e, Laws o n ’ s co u n s el w a s q u e s t io n i n g a fri en d

o f L aws on ’ s fam il y ab o u t h er rel at i o n s h i p wi th K

. L

. ’ s m o t h er wh en t h e St at e

o b ject ed as to rel ev an ce, res u l t i n g i n an o t h er b ri ef b en c h co n feren ce. An d at i t s

co n cl u s i o n

, t h e t ri al co u rt o v erru l ed t h e o b ject io n

, an d Laws on ’ s co u ns el rep eat ed h er

q u es ti o n

.

Fi n al l y

, th e l as t b en ch co n feren ce at issue oc c ur r e d dur ing Laws o n ’ s t es t i m o n y

,

wh en h i s co u n s el as k ed hi m a qu es t i o n ab o u t w h at K. L. an d h er m ot h er s ai d t o h i m

as t h ey were l eav in g t h e h o sp i t al fo l l o wi n g K. L .’ s s ex u al as s au l t ex am i n at i o n

. Th e

St at e l o d g ed a h ears ay o b ject i o n

, an d t h e tri al co u rt h el d a sh o rt b en ch co n feren ce,

aft er wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt al l o wed t h e q u es ti o n

.

14Du ri n g t h e h eari n g o n Laws o n ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

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

s p eci fi cal l y recal l an y

o f t h es e co nferen ces b ut , b as ed o n read i n g t h e t ran scri p t an d

t h e co n t ex t i n w h i ch t h ey o ccu rred

, s h e g u es s ed t h e c o n f e r e n c e ju s t b efo re t h e

t es t i m o ny o f t h e fo ren s i c i n t erv i ewer co n cern ed w h et h er s h e h ad an y o b j ect i on s t o t h e

St at e p l ay i n g t h e reco rd i n g s o f t h e i n terv i ews

. Sh e fu rt h er s urm i s ed t h at t h e

co n feren ce fo l lo wi n g t h e St at e’ s o b ject i o n to h er q u es t i o n t o Laws o n ’ s fam i l y fri en d

ab o ut h er rel at i o ns h i p wi t h K

. L.’ s m o t h er co n cern ed

— n o t s u rp ri s i n g l y

— t h e St at e’ s

o b ject i on t o t h at q u es t i on

. Gi ven h i s co u n s el ’ s sp ecu l at i o n an d b as ed o n wh at can b e

d i s cern ed fro m t h e t ran s cri p t

, each o f t h es e p art i cu l ar b en ch co n feren ces ap p ear to

h av e i n v o l v ed leg al arg um en t o n ev i d en t i ary i ssue s, a nd c onse que ntly

, L a w son’ s ri g ht

t o b e p res en t was n o t i m

p l i cat ed

. 2 1

2 1 S ee Reeves

, 3 0 9 Ga. at 64 8 (2 ) (“ W hen co un s el p art i ci p at es i n a b en c h

co n feren ce i n v o lv i n g p u rel y l eg al is s u es

, t h e ri g h t to b e pres en t i s n o t i m p l i cat ed ”);

H a r d y v

. S t at e

, 3 0 6 Ga. 6 5 4

, 6 6 0 (2 ) (c) (8 32 SE2 d 7 7 0) (2 0 1 9 ) (h o ld i n g t h a t

d i s cu s s i o n o f co -d efen d an t ’ s p ret ri al m o t i o ns i n d efen d an t ’ s ab s en ce i n v o l ved o n l y

l eg al arg u m en ts an d, t h erefo re, d i d n ot v i o lat e h i s co n s t i t u t i o n al ri g h t t o b e p res en t

d u ri n g a l l cri ti cal s t ag es o f t h e p ro ceed i ng s ag ai n st h i m ); Ro b er t s o n

, 3 5 9 Ga. Ap p.

at 3 31 -3 3 (2 ) (co n cl ud i n g th at d efen d a n t ’s ri g h t t o b e p res en t was n o t im p l i cat ed

wh en b en ch co n feren ces i nv o l v ed o n l y l eg al arg u m en t s ); Pa ck v. St a t e

, 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p.

7 8 3

, 78 4 -8 5 (1 ) (7 8 3 SE2 d 1 4 6 ) (2 0 16 ) (h o l d i n g t h at al t h o u g h b e n ch co n feren ce

rel at ed t o ju ry s el ect io n

, i t u l t i m at el y i n v o l v ed a p urel y l eg al q u e s t i o n

, an d t h u s

, d efen d an t h ad n o ri g h t t o b e p res en t ).

153

. Fi n al l y

, Laws on co nt en d s t h e t ri al co u rt erred in d en y in g h i s cl ai m t h at h i s

co u ns el ren d ered i n effect i v e as si s t a n c e w h en s h e fai l ed t o ob ject t o i m

p ro p er

q u es ti o n i n g fro m

t h e St at e d u ri n g h i s t es t i m o n y . On ce ag ai n, we d i s ag ree.

To ev al u at e Laws o n’ s cl ai m o f in effect i v e as s i s tan ce o f co u n s el

, we ap p l y t h e

t wo -p ro ng ed t es t es t ab l i s hed i n S t r i ckl a nd v. W as h i ng t o n

, 2 2 w h i ch req u i res h i m to

s h o w t hat h i s t ri al co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was “ d efi ci en t a n d t h at t h e d efi ci en t

p erfo rm an ce s o p r eju d i ced h i m t h at t h ere is a reas o nab l e l i k el i h o o d t h at

, b u t fo r

co u ns el ’ s erro rs

, t he o u t co m e of t h e tri al wo u l d hav e b een di fferen t .” 2 3 Fu rt h erm o re,

s h o u ld a d efen d an t “ fai l t o m eet h i s b u rd en o n o ne p ro ng o f t h i s t wo -p ro n g t es t , we

n eed n o t rev i ew t h e o t h er p ro n g.” 2 4 In ad d i t i o n, t here i s a s t ro n g p res um p t i on t h at t ri al

co u n s e l ’s co n d u ct fal l s wi th in t h e b ro ad ran g e o f reas o nab l e p ro fes s io n al co n d u ct

,

an d a cri m i nal d efen d an t m u s t o v erco m e t h i s p res u m p t i o n

. 2 5 An d i m

p o rt an t l y

,

2 2 4 6 6 U.S. 6 6 8 (1 0 4 SCt 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4).

2 3 Ch a p ma n v. S t a t e

, 2 7 3 Ga. 3 4 8

, 3 4 9 -5 0 (2 ) (5 4 1 SE2 d 6 3 4 ) ( 2 0 0 1 ); s ee

S t r i ckl a nd

, 4 6 6 U.S. at 6 8 7 (III); As h m i d v

. S t a t e

, 3 1 6 G a. Ap p

. 5 5 0

, 5 56 (3 ) (7 3 0

SE2 d 3 7 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

2 4 M cAl l i s t er v. S t at e

, 3 5 1 Ga. Ap p

. 7 6

, 9 3 (6 ) (8 3 0 SE2 d 4 4 3 ) (2 0 1 9 ); a cco r d

Go mez v. S t a te , 3 0 0 Ga. 5 7 1, 5 7 3 (7 9 7 SE2 d 4 7 8 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

2 5 Ch a p m a n

, 2 7 3 Ga. at 3 5 0 (2 ); s ee Ca mmer v. W a l ker

, 29 0 Ga. 2 5 1

, 2 5 5 (1 )

(7 1 9 SE2 d 4 3 7) (2 0 1 1 ) ( “ A cl ai m o f i n effect i ve as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el i s ju d g ed by

16d eci s i o n s reg ard in g t ri al t act i cs an d s t rat eg y m ay fo rm th e b as i s fo r an i neffect i v en es s

cl ai m o n l y i f “ t h ey w ere s o p at en t l y u n reas o n ab l e t h at n o co m p et en t at t o rn ey wo u ld

h av e fo l l o wed s u ch a co u rs e.” 2 6 M o reo v er, un l es s cl earl y erro n eo u s , t h i s Co u rt wi l l

“ u p h o l d a tri al co u rt ’ s fact u al d et erm i n at i on s w i t h res p ect t o cl ai m s o f i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce o f co u n s el ; h owev er, a t ri al co u rt ’ s l eg al co n cl u s i o ns i n t h i s reg ard are

rev i ewed d

e n o vo

. ” 2 7

In t h i s cas e, d u ri n g th e St at e’ s cro s s ex am i n at i o n o f Laws o n

, t h e p ro s ecu t o r

as k ed h i m a b o u t h i s t wo p ri o r co n v ict i o n s

, w h i ch L aws o n ack n owl ed g ed

.

Im m ed i at el y fo l l o wi n g th at ack n o wl ed g m en t

, t h e p ro s ecu to r as k ed : “ An d d o y o u

u n d ers t an d t h at u n d er Geo rg i a l aw t h at m ean s t h at y ou ’ re n o t en t i t l ed t o b el i ef; d o

y o u u nd ers t an d t h at ? ” Defen s e co u n s el d i d n o t o bject t o t hi s q u es t i on

, an d Laws o n

res p o n d ed t h at h e was u n aware o f t h i s . Th e St at e as k ed n o ad d it i o n al q u es t i o n s

.

wh et h er co u n s el ren dered reas o n ab l y effect i v e as s i s t a n ce, no t b y a s t an d ard o f

erro rl es s co u n s el o r b y

h i n d s ig h t .” (p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed )).

2 6 Lo ckh a r t

v. S t a te , 2 9 8 Ga. 3 8 4 , 3 8 5 (2 ) (7 8 2 SE2 d 2 4 5 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

2 7 S o wel l v. S t a t e

, 3 2 7 Ga. Ap p . 5 3 2 , 5 39 (4 ) (7 59 SE2 d 6 0 2 ) (2 0 14 ); a cco r d

Hu g g i n s v. S t a te

, 3 65 Ga. Ap p

. 4 5 0, 4 5 1 (8 6 8 SE2 d 8 4 0 ) (2 0 2 2); s ee Gr a n t v. S t a t e

, 2 9 5 Ga. 1 2 6

, 1 3 0 (5 ) (7 5 7 SE2 d 8 3 1) (2 0 1 4) (h o l d in g t h at “ [i ] n rev i ewi n g a cl ai m o f

i n effect i v e as s is t an ce, we g iv e d eferen ce to t he t ri al co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n d i n g s an d

cred i b i l i t y det erm in at i o n s u nl es s cl earl y erro n eo u s

, b u t we rev i ew a t ri al co u rt ’ s l eg al

co n cl u s i o n s d e n o v o”).

17Du ri n g t h e h eari n g o n h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, Laws on ’ s t ri al co u n s el was

q u es ti o n ed ab o u t t h is ex ch an ge b u t h ad n o reco l l ect i o n o f i t

. No w, Laws o n arg u es t h e

St at e pro secu t o r’ s q u es t i o n m i s s t at ed th e l aw an d co ns t i t u ted an im pro p er at t ack o n

h i s cred i b i li t y ; an d as a res u l t, h i s t ri al co u n s el ren d ered i n effect i ve as s i s t an ce by

fai l i n g t o o b

ject . Al t h o u g h w e are wi t h Laws o n t hat t h e St at e’ s q ues t i o n was n o t an

accu rat e s t at em en t o f t h e l aw, 2 8 i t i s o f n o co n s eq uen ce. In d eed

, ev en i f t ri al co u n sel ’ s

fai l u re to o b

ject co n st i t u t ed defi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, Law s o n h as n o t s ho wn t h at t h e

erro r was “ s o s eri o us t h at [i t ] l i k el y affect ed t h e o ut co m e o f t h e t ri al .” 2 9 As we h av e

p rev i o u s l y n o ted

, s at i s fact io n o f t h i s t es t i s “ a d iffi cu l t en d eav o r .” 3 0 A n d s i m p l y

b ecau s e a d efen d an t h as “ s h o w n t h a t [ hi s ] t ri al co u n s el p erfo rm ed d efi ci en t l y d o es n ot

l ead t o a n au t o m at i c co n cl u s i o n t h at [h e] was p reju d i ced b y co u n sel ’ s d efi ci en t

p erfo rm a n c e .” 3 1 Here, K. L. t es t i fi ed t hat L aws on s ex u al l y as s au l t ed h er, an d t h e

2 8 S ee s u p r a n o t e 3 & acco m

p an y i n g t ex t

.

2 9 Br o wn v. S t a t e

, 3 0 7 Ga. 2 4

, 3 3 (6 ) (8 3 4 SE2 d 4 0 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ); a cco r d Jo n es v. S t a t e , 3 0 5 Ga. 7 5 0 , 7 5 5 (4 ) (8 2 7 SE2 d 8 7 9 ) (2 0 1 9 ).

3 0 Br o wn

, 3 0 7 Ga. at 3 3 (6 ) (p un ct u at i o n o m it t ed ); acco r d Da vi s v. S ta t e

, 3 0 6

Ga. 1 4 0 , 1 4 4 (3 ) (8 2 9 SE2 d 3 2 1 ) (2 0 1 9 ).

3 1 Br o wn

, 3 0 7 Ga. at 3 3 (6 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ) ; a c c o r d Da vi s, 3 0 6 Ga. at

1 4 4 (3 ).

18s ex u al as s au l t ex am i n at i o n at t h e h o s p i t al i n d i cat ed b ru i s in g t o h er vag i n a co n s i s t en t

wi t h t he m an n er o f s ex u al ab us e s h e d es cri b ed

. Si g ni fi can t l y

, t h e D NA fro m s em en

fo u n d i n si d e K. L.’ s v ag i n a d u ri n g t h e s ex u al as s au l t ex am i nat i o n m at ch ed DNA

s am p l es co l l ect ed fro m Laws o n b y l aw en fo rcem en t

. G i v en th es e p art i cu l ar

ci rcu m s t an ces

, th e ev i d en ce s u p p ort i n g Laws o n ’ s co n vi ct i o n w as s ub s tan t i al

, an d,

t h erefo re, h e has fai l ed to d e m o n s t r at e a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i li t y t h at

, bu t fo r t h e

al l eg ed d efi ci en cy

, t h e t ri al wo u l d h av e res u l t ed i n a d i fferen t ou t co m e. 3 2 Th u s

, t h e

t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err i n d en y i ng h i s cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s i st an ce o f co u n s el

.

Fo r al l th es e reas o n s

, we af f i r m L a w s o n ’ s co nv i ct io n an d t h e d en i al o f h i 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 . Mer ci er

a n d Ma r kl e, JJ., co ncu r

.

3 2 N e w ma n v. S t a te

, 3 0 9 Ga. 17 1

, 1 8 3 -8 4 (2 ) (i ) (8 4 4 SE2 d 7 7 5) (2 0 2 0 )

(co n cl u d i n g t h at ev en i f tri al co u n s el ren dered d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce i n fai l i n g to

o b ject t o d efen d an t ’ s t h ree p ri o r co n v i c t i o n s

, i n l i g h t o f o verwh el m i n g ev i d en ce o f

g u i l t

, d efen d an t co u l d n o t s ho w p reju d i ce); B r o wn

, 3 0 7 Ga. at 3 3 (6 ) (a) (h o l d i n g t h at

e v e n i f tri al co u n s el p erfo rm ed d efi ci en tl y b y fai l i n g t o o b ject wh en i nv es t i g at o r’ s

t es t i m o ny am o un ted t o im p ro p er ch aract er e v id en ce, d efen d an t fai led t o p ro v e

req u i s i t e p reju di ce fo r cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce of counse l, g i v en o v erwh el m i n g

ev i d en ce o f d efen dan t ’ s g ui l t ); S ca l es v. S t a te

, 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p

. 1 6 4

, 1 6 7 -6 8 (2 ) (a) (8 4 6

SE2 d 4 18 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (fi n d i ng th at

, g i v en o v erwh el m i ng ev i den ce, an y erro r b y d efen s e

co u ns el i n fai l in g t o o b

ject t o t h e St at e i m

p ro p erl y p l aci n g d efen dan t ’ s ch aract er i n to

ev i d en ce d i d no t p reju d i ce d efen d an t, an d t h u s

, co u l d no t am ou n t t o i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce).

19