2 9 6 Ga . 4 65

F INAL COP Y

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

.

BENHAM, Ju stic e

.

Th e S t a te a

p p e a ls th e tria l c o urt’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 i n re g ard to h is c on vic tio ns 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 arm 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 i n a l i g h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic 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

Ha n c oc k h a d in te rje c te d h im se lf in to an arg u m e nt 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 he r b ro th e r. A w e e k

1 The crimes occurred o n March 10, 2012. On March 29, 2012, a Stephens County g rand jury retu r n e d a true bill o f indictment charg ing a ppellee w ith malice murder, f elony murder,

ag g r avated assault, possession of firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during

the commission o f a f

elony

. Appellee was tried before a j u r y f r o m S e p t ember 24, 2012, to September 28, 2012, and the jury acquitted appellee of malice murder and ag g ravated assault, but

found him g uilty on t h e r e m a i n ing charg es. The jury also found appellee g uilty of voluntary manslaug hter as a lesser included offense o f malice murder, but that count was vacated as a matter
of law. On October 25, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellee to a life sentence for felony murder

and five y ears to be served consecu t i v e l y f o r possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony

. The count of possession o f a firearm by a convic t e d felon merg e d into the felony murder

conviction. Appellee moved for a new trial on October 5, 2 012, a nd amended his motion on November 11, 2013. The trial court heard the motion on November 13, 2013, a nd g ranted the

motion on May 1 6, 2014. The State filed a timely appeal o n J une 13, 2014, a nd the case was docketed to the September 2014 term of this Court. The case was orally arg ued on O ctober 7, 2014.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 r g u m e n t r e g a rd in g a

p p e lle e ’s re la tio n sh ip with

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

, a n d Ha n c o c k le ft a fte 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

. On th e n ig h t 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 lle e in h is c a r with a wo m a n

. K. M. fo llo we d a p pe 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 nd g o t o u t of h e r v e h ic le to c on fro n t a p p e lle e , an d th e

two arg u e d

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

. Ha n c o c k, wh o h a d

b e e n wa tc h in g th e a rg u m e n t 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 c o u ra g e K. M

. to le a v e

. Th e situ a tio n b e c a m e he a te d, an d H a 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 ss e s te stifie d Ha n c o c k wa s un a rm e d d u rin g th e

a lte rc a tio n

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

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

3 Althoug h a

uthorities 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.

2c a m e b a c k o u tsid e with a gu n in h is h a nd a n d sh o t Ha n c o c k se ve 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 oc 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 xa c tly h o w m a n y b u lle ts c a use d th e wo u n ds. E y e witn e sse s

te stifie d th e y h e a r d t w o to th re e g u n sh o ts. Th e m e dic a l e x a m in e r sta te d th e re

wa s n o sti p p l i n g o r g u n re sid 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 me d ic 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 with th e Ge o rg ia Bu re a u of In ve stig a tio n (G B I ) i n 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 l l ee ’ s fa c e a t th e tim e o f th e in te rv ie w. Th e S ta te p la y e d a n

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

pp e lle 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 gu 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 t i n g th e v ic tim

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

Ha n c oc k h it h im n o m ore th a n t h r e e t i m 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 l o w ma d e him “ d iz z y , ” a n d h e wa s n o t su re a b o u t

wh e th e r th e re wa s a t h i r d b l o w

. Afte r th e se c o n d b lo w , h e sa id h e d id n o t

3b e lie v e he c o u ld “b e a t ” Ha n c o c k a n d h e d id 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 nd m o th e r a n d h is g ra nd m o th e r h a vin 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 r v i ew with th e GBI a g e n t, a p p e lle e wa s u na wa re th a t

Ha n c oc k wa s d e c e a se d

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

h e w a s a b le to sit do 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 sse n g e rs

g o t b a c k in to th e v e hic le a n d d ro v e o ff to ta k e Ha n c o c 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 GB I a g e n t th a t a fte r th e sh o o tin g h e

4 The audio r ec o rd i n g and transcript of a ppellee’s interview w ith the GB I ag ent shows in relevant part: [ APPEL L EE] : W hen he hit me, the second blow kinda go t m e a l ittle d iz 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 AGENT] : Um-hum. [ APPEL L EE] : That’s when I pulled the g un out on him.

. . . [ GB I AGENT] : W here did y ou have the g un at? [ APPEL L EE] : W here did I have the g

un at? [ GB I AGENT] : Yeah. [ APPEL L EE] : Uhhh, [ i] t was under my g randmother’s couch[ .] [ GB I AGENT] : Okay

. So a fter [ Hancock] hit y ou, y ou went in and pulled it out from

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

did she? [ APPEL L EE] : Mmm-mmm [ neg ative]

.

4d 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 n e , h e d e n ie d h a v in g a ny k n o wle d ge a b o u t a gu n o r th 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 t r i e r o f f a c t to fin d a

p p e lle e g u ilty 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 vic 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

. T h e S ta te c o n te n d s th e tria l c o u rt 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 at 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 i l e d t o o b je c t to c o m m e n ts m a 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

fo rwa rd to p o lic e a fte r th e sh o o ti n g

. T h 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 vid e n c e will a lso b e th a t S t e v e S im s ne 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 l le d 91 1, n or d id a n yb o d y

5a sso c i a te d with h im

, n o 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 will he a r th a t a fte r th e sh o o tin g , Mr. S im s d id n ’t c a ll 9 1 1

o r th e p o l ic e

. . . . Yo u w ill a lso h e a r th a t wh e n th e p o lic e

c a m e in Mr

. Sim s’ g ra n dm o th e r’s h o u se to c o m e fin d o u t

w h a t ’s g oin g on , h e d o e sn ’t sa y , le t m e te ll y o u w h a t ’ s h a p p e n e d

. He d o e s n ’t sa 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

bo 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 on 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 we n t in sid e , g o t th e gu 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 S im s n e ve r c a lle d th e p o lic e to

g e t h e lp fo r S h a w n Ha n c o c k o r to te l l wh a t ha p p e n e d

. H e

a tte m p te d to a v o id re sp o n sib ility b y p re te nd in g a s if h e h a d n' t
sh o t a n ybo d y a nd h e wa sn ' t re a lly su re wh a t h a p p e ne d

. A n d

,

a g a in

, th a t' s im

po rta n t, b e c a

u se we ' re g o in g to b e a rg u in g to

y o u th a t if Mr. S im s wa n ts to c la im se lf-d e fe nse , 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

n o re a so n th a t y ou h a v e 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

.

Th 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 m m e n t o n e ith e r a d e fe n d a n t’s sile n c e

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

6p rio r to a rre st o r fa ilu re to c om e fo rwa rd v o lu nta rily .” S a n d e rs v

. S ta te

, 2 9 0 Ga

.

6 3 7 (4 ) (7 2 3 SE2 d 4 3 6 ) (2 0 12 ). Th e tria l c o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t tria l c o u n s e l

wa s d e fic ie n t, p u rsu a n t to S tric k la n d v. W a sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U.S

. 6 6 8 (III) (1 0 4 S Ct

2 0 5 2, 8 0 L E2 d 6 74 ) (1 9 84 ), fo r fa ilin g to o b je c t to th e c o m m e nts 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

.

I n o r d e r to p re v a il o n a c la 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 p re ju d ic e d h im to th e po 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 d iffe re 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 r u i t t v

. S ta te

, 2 8 2 Ga

. 3 0

, 3 4 (4 ) (6 4 4

S E2 d 8 3 7 ) (2 00 7 ). W h e th e r a tria l a tto rn e y re n de rs c o nstitu tio na lly in e ffe c tiv e

a 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 win 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 tria 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 n e o u s, b ut o we n o su c h d e fe re n c e to

7its 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 (3 ) (7 45 S E2 d 6 1 7 ) (2 0 1 3 ). 6

(a ) Th e S ta te c o n te n d s th e tria l c o u rt e rre d b e c a u se th e c o m m e n ts a t issu e

d id no t v io la te M a llo ry , su p ra , o r its p ro g e n y , a n d so th e re wa s n o v a lid b a 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 de fic ie n t i n h i s p e r fo 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 r i g h t

- l in e ru le in Ge o rg ia th a t th e S ta te m a y n o t

c o m m e n t 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 o m e fo rwa rd v o lu n ta rily

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

m o re pre ju d ic ia l th a n p ro b a tiv e , th is Co u rt h a s d e te rm in e d th a t th e y

a re n o t to b e p e rm itte d e v e n in situ a tio ns in wh ic h th e d e fe n d a 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 in h is o wn d e fe n se . [Cit.]

S a n de rs v

. S ta te

, 29 0 Ga

. 6 3 7 (4 ) (7 2 3 S E2 d 4 3 6 ) (2 0 1 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 his rig h t to sile n c e u p o n b e in g a rre ste d a n d su b je c t to

in 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 Ma llo 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

6 The State’s c itation to State v. J ames, 292 Ga. 4 40 ( 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.

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, 285 Ga. 842 (684 SE2d 590) (2009); or any other 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.

8to 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 uish 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 E 2 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 ta t e , 2 8 5 G a

. 8 42 (4 ) (6 8 4

S E2 d 5 9 0 ) (2 00 9 ); Mc Mic he 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 r e

- tria l sta te m e n ts to a u th oritie s. Ra th e r th 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 in g a rre ste d

. Th is v io la t e d t h e b rig h t-lin e ru le of Ma llo ry

. Se 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 ).

At th e m otio n fo r n e w tria l h e a rin g , tria l c o un se l t e s t i f i e d h is fa ilu re to

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

u n re la te d t o a n y t r i a l stra te g y

. Th e tria l c o urt wa 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 r f o r m a n c e wh e n 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. T h o m a s v

. S ta te

, 28 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 ,

9c 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 nt h e did 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 an d wa s ju stifie d in his 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

, w h o w a s 6 [fe e t]

5 [in c h e s] ta ll a n d we ig h e d 3 5 7 p o u n d s, wa s m u c h la rg e r t h 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 m e wh e re h e liv e d

. [Ap p e lle e ’s] f a t h 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 nc e w a s a lso in tro d u c e d th a t
th e two h a d a

n a lte rc a tio n p rio r to th e n ig ht of th e sh o o tin g a n d th a t
th e v ic tim ha 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 w a s c o n flic tin g e v id e n c 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 p p e lle e ’s] p re

a rre st sile n c e an d f

a ilu re 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 l y in flu e n c e d th e v e rd ic t. [Cit.] Ultim a te 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 il t,

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.

8 W e note that, while the prosecutor’s comments reg arding appellee’s failure to c o n t a c t p o l i c e 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 a ny other action to contact police about Hancock or K. M. a nd her other companions being on his g randmother’s property in the middle of the nig ht, were not improper.

10Th is a n a ly sis is so u n d

. A p p e l le e ’s so le d e fe n se wa s ju stific a tio n

. Th e

p ro se c u to r’s re pe a te d im

p ro p e r c o m m e n ts a t th e v e ry b e g in n in g o f 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 n c e o f g uilt is wh a t

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

. S ta te

, 2 8 9 G a

.

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 t i r e tria l. Also

, up o n re v ie win g

th e re c o rd

, we a g re e with th e tria l c o u rt’s a sse ssm e n t th a t th e e v id e nc 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

b 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 uto r’s im p r o 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 th e tria l c ou rt’s fin din g of p re ju dic e i n th is

c a se

.

3

. F in a lly

, we n ote t h a t M a l l ory wa s d e c id e d n o t o n c o n stitu tio 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 io n a

b ou t th e c o n ti n u i n g v a l id ity o f Ma llo ry u n d e r th e n e w

9 W itnesses differed as to whether there was a second altercation after appellee came back

out with the g un or whether appellee simply came out with the g u n and fired. T h e r e w a s a lso conflicting evidence as to whether appellee was injured during his altercation with Hancock.

11Ev id e nc e Co d e

. Se e Ro me 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.

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

.

Mu rd e r. S te p h e n s S u p e rio r Co u rt. Be fo re Ju d ge Ca u de ll.

Bria n M. R ic k m a n, Dist r i c t Atto rn e y , Ric ha rd K. Brid g e m a n , Assista n t

Distric t Atto rn e y , fo r a

p p e lla n t.

Th e S te e l La w F irm , Bria n S te e l, fo r a p pe lle e

.

12