2 9 6 Ga . 5 04

F INAL COP Y

S 1 4 A1 9 3 3 . JOHNS ON v

. THE S TATE.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

P a u l Jo h n so n w a s trie d b y a F u lto n Co un ty ju ry a n d c o n v ic te d o f m u rd e r

a n d o th e r c rim e s, a l l i n c o n n e c tio n with th e k illin g o f C ra ig P orte r. Jo h n so n

a p p e a ls, c on te n d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su ffic ie n t to su sta in his c o n v ic tio n s,

th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n i t a d m itte d c e rta in te stim on y fro m th e m e d ic a l

e x a m in e r, th a t th e tria l c ou rt e rre d wh e n it a d m itte d e v id e nc e o f a p h oto g ra p h ic

lin e up th a t, Jo h n s o n sa y s, wa s u n d u ly su g ge stiv e , an d th a t h e wa s de n ie d th e

e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e o f c o u n s e l. U p o n o u r re v ie w o f th e re c o rd a n d b rie fs, we

fin d n o e rro r, a n d we a ffirm

. 1

1 The crim es were com m itted o n April 2, 2004. Johnson was indicted on Novem ber 9, 2005, and he was charged with m alice m urder, two counts of

f elony m urder (predicated

on aggravated assault and unlawf u l possession of a f

irearm by a convicted f

elon), aggravated assault, unlawf

ul possession of a f

irearm during the com m ission of a f elony

, unlawf

ul possession of a f

irearm by a convicted f

elon, and p ossession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. The trial court put the counts that charged Johnson with possession of a f irearm by a convicted f

elon a nd f

e l o n y mu rder p redicated o n t hat charge on the d ead docket.
Johnson was tried beginning on Novem ber 5, 2007, and the jury returned its verdict on Novem ber 13, f i nding Johnson g uilty on all the rem aining counts. On Novem ber 27, 2007,
the trial court sentenced Johnson to lif e in p rison f

o r m alice m

urder, a consecutive term of
im p risonm ent f

or f ive y ears f

or unlawf ul possession of a f

irearm during the c om m ission of

a f elony

, and a concurrent term of im prisonm e nt f

or ten y ears f

or possession of cocaine with
the intent to distribute. The v erdict as to f elony m urder predicated on aggravated a s sault was vacated, and t he aggravated assault m erged into m alice m urder. See Malcolm v. State, 2631

. Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra ble to th e v e rd ic t, th e e v id e nc e sh o w s

th a t a ro u n d 3 :3 0 o n th e m o rn in g of Ap ril 2

, 2 0 0 4

, P o rte r a n d h is g irlfrie n d

,

Tia n a S m ith

, le ft th e ir h o m e in Jo n e sb o ro an d we n t to th e p a r k i ng lo t o f a

n e a rb y g a s sta tio n to p u rc h a se c ra c k c o c a in e

. T h e y a lre a d y h a d b e e n to th is sa m e

p a rk in g lo t to p u rc h a se d ru g s e a rlie r, b u t th e y h a d be e n so ld fa k e d ru g s. Ha v in g

sp e n t a ll th e ir m on e y , P o rte r a n d S m ith in te n d e d to “p u ll o ff with so m e b o d y ’s

c ra c k ” with o u t p a y in g fo r it.

Th e c o u p le e n c o u n te re d Bre n t Jo h n so n n e a r th e g a s sta tio n pa rk in g lo t a n d

a sk e d h im if he kn e w w h e r e th e y c o u ld p u rc h a se “ d o p e .” 2 Bre n t g o t in to th e ir

c a r a n d d ire c te d th e m to th e Co lu m b ia Hills Ap a rtm e nts in A tla n ta

. Wh e n th e y

a rriv e d, B re n t we n t to a n a pa rtm e n t o n th e first flo o r o f “ Bu ild in g H,” a n d S m ith

sa w Jo h n s o n e m e rg e fro m th e a p a rtm e n t with a gu n tu c k e d in to h is p a n ts.

Jo h n so n a p p ro a c h e d th e p a sse n g e r sid e o f th e c o u p le ’s c a r, e n g a g e d th e m in a

b rie f c o n v e rsa tio n , a n d u ltim a te ly h a n d e d S m ith a p a c ka g e c o n ta in in g c ra c k

G a

. 3 6 9

, 3 71-374 (4), (5) (434 SE2d 479) ( 1993). Johnson f i led a m o tion f

or new tri a l o n Novem ber 2 8, 2007, and he am ended it on S eptem ber 22, 2012. The trial court denied his

m otion o n January 23, 2013, and Johnson tim ely f iled a n o t i c e o f appeal to t he Court of Appeals on February 5, 2013. The case was transf erred to this Court on July 3 1, 2014, where
it was docketed f

or the Septem

ber 2014 term

and subm itted f

or decision on the brief

s.

2 Brent Johnson is not r elated to the appellant, and he is ref erred to h erein as “Brent”
to avoid conf

u sion with the appellant, to whom we ref e r as “Johnson.”

2c o c a in e

. P o rte r a tte m p te d to sp e e d o ff in th e c a r, b ut a s h e d ro v e a wa y , Jo h n so n

b e g a n sh o otin g a t h im

. P o rte r wa s k ille d b y a b u lle t th a t stru c k h im in th e b a c k

o f th e h e a d

, a nd h e su sta in e d a se c o n d g u n sh o t w o u nd to h is b a c k b e twe e n h is

sh o u ld e r b la d e s. S m ith wa s a b le to ste e r th e c a r o u t o f th e a pa rtm e n t c o m

p le x ,

sh e h a ile d a n o n c om in g c a r, a n d sh e wa s re sc ue d b y th e d riv e r o f th a t c a r.

In th e a fte rm a th o f th e sh o o t i n g , Jo h n so n a rg u e d with Bre nt a b o u t th e

in c id e n t b e fo re re tu rn in g to h is a p a rtm e n t. P o lic e o ffic e rs a rriv e d sh o rtly

th e re a fte r, a n d th e y d i s c o v e re d P o rte r’s b o d y in th e c a r ju st o u tsid e th e

a p a rtm e nt c o m

p le x

. Th e r e we r e s e v e ra l b u lle t h o le s in th e re a r win d o w o f th e

c a r a nd b u lle t fra g m e n t s th e re in

. La te r th a t m o rn in g , o ffic e rs d isc o v e re d

n u m e ro u s sh e ll c a sin g s o u tsid e “ Bu ild in g H.” Th e in ve stig a tio n u ltim a te ly

fo c u se d o n th e a

pa rtm e n t o n th e first flo o r o f th a t b uild in g th a t wa s fre q u e n te d

b y Jo hn so n , Eric k O w e n s , Ca v a ra s Cla rk

, a nd Ke v in Re e se

. P o lic e fo u n d

c o c a in e a n d m a riju a na in th e a pa rtm e nt, a nd Owe n s a dm itte d th a t h e a n d

Jo h n so n u se d th e a

p a rtm e nt to se ll d ru g s. Owe n s re p o rte d th a t Jo h n so n a d m itte d

to h a v in g “ u n lo a d e d ” h is g u n o n so m e pe o p le wh o trie d to “ rid e o u t with so m e

d ru g s,” a n d Owe n s d ire c te d th e p o lic e to Bre n t

, wh o m h e d e sc rib e d a s th e

“ ju nk ie ” wh o bro u g h t th e c o u p le to th e a p a r tm e n t c om p le x an d o b se rv e d th e

3sh o o tin g

. Wh e n p o lic e o ffic e rs lo c a te d Bre n t, h e p ro v id e d th e m w ith d e ta ils o f

th e sh oo tin g a n d its a fte rm a th th a t c o rro b o ra te d th e sto rie s p ro v id e d b y S m ith

a n d Owe n s, a n d S m ith id e n tifie d Jo h n s o n a s th e sh o o te r in a p h oto g ra p h ic

lin e up

.

Jo h n so n c o n te n d s th a t th e e v id e n c e is le g a lly in su ffic ie n t to p ro v e b e y o n d

a re a so n a b le d o u bt th a t h e is g u ilty o f th e c rim e s o f w h ic h h e w a s c on v ic te d

. In

su p p o rt o f th is c o n te n tio n, Jo h n so n p oin ts to th e la c k of p h y sic a l e v id e n c e

c o n n e c tin g him to th e c rim e , th e in c o n siste n t a n d u n re liab le n a tu re o f th e

e y e witn e ss te stim o n y , a d isc re p a n c y in th e te stim o n y o f th e le a d d e te c tiv e , a n d

th e e x iste n c e of o th e r su sp e c ts wh o c o u ld h a v e c o m m itte d th e c ri me

. Bu t th e

S ta te wa s n ot re q u ire d t o p r o d u c e a n y p h y sic a l e v id e n c e , a s “th e te stim o n y o f

a sin g le witn e ss is g e n e ra lly su ffic ie n t to e sta b l i s h a fa c t, [a n d t] he la c k o f

c o rro b o ra tio n [with p h y sic a l e v id e n c e ] o n ly go e s to th e we ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e

a n d th e c re d ib ility o f th e te stify in g witn e ss, wh ic h is so le ly with in th e pu rv ie w

o f th e ju ry .” Ma n u e l v

. S ta te

, 2 8 9 Ga

. 3 8 3

, 38 5 (1 ) (7 1 1 S E2 d 6 76 ) (2 0 1 1 )

( c i t a t i o n s a nd p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ). An d a lth o u g h th e re we re m u ltip le

in c o nsiste nc ie s in t h e t e s tim o n y p re se n te d by th e S ta te

, “ [a ] s lo n g a s th e re is

so m e c o m

p e te n t e vid e n c e , e v e n th o u g h c o n tra d ic te d

, to su p po rt e a c h f a c t

4n e c e ssa ry to m a k e o u t th e S ta te ’s c a se , we mu st up ho ld th e ju ry ’s ve rd ic t.”

Ra n k in v

. Sta te

, 2 7 8 Ga

. 7 0 4 (6 0 6 S E2 d 2 6 9 ) (2 0 04 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Vie win g

a ll th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic t, we c o n c l u d e th a t it

wa s su ffic ie n t to a

u th oriz e a ra tio n a l t rie r o f fa c t to fin d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le

d o u bt th a t Jo h n so n w a s g u ilty o f th e c rim e s o f wh ic h h e wa s c o nv ic te d

. Ja c k so n

v

. Virg in ia

, 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7

, 3 1 9 (III) (B) (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 56 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

S e e a lso S im m o n s v . S ta te , 2 9 1 Ga . 7 0 5 , 7 0 6 (1 ) (7 3 3 S E2 d 2 8 0 ) (2 0 12 ).

2

. Jo h n so n c la im s th a t th e tria l c o urt e rre d wh e n it a llo we d th e me d i c a l

e x a m in e r to pro v id e h e r op in io n a bo u t m a tte rs o u tsid e he r o ffe re d a re a o f

e x p e rtise

. Wh e n a sk e d a t tria l to e x p la in th e a b se n c e o f b ulle t fra gm e n ts in th e

(n o n -fa ta l ) w o u n d b e twe e n P o rte r’s sh ou ld e r b la de s, th e m e dic a l e x a m in e r

te stifie d th a t sh e be lie v e d th e b u lle t “c re a te d a n e n tra nc e wo u n d b u t did n o t h a v e

e n o u g h e n e rg y to p e ne tra te h is b o d y a n d in ste a d re b o u n d e d o u tsid e h is b o d y .”

Jo h n so n a sse rts th a t th is te stim o n y c le a rly we n t b e y on d th e m e d ic a l e x a m in e r’s

e x p e rtise

, se e Jo h n so n v

. Kn e b e l

, 2 6 7 Ga

. 8 5 3

, 85 7 -8 5 8 (3 ) (4 85 S E 2 d 4 5 1 )

(1 9 9 7 ), b u t we d isa g re e

. Th e m e d ic a l e xa m in e r d e mo n stra te d th a t sh e wa s

e x p e rie n c e d in d e a lin g with c e rta in b a llistic s issu e s re la te d to

, a m o n g o th e r

t h i n g s, ra n g e o f fire

, so o t, stip p lin g , a n d th e tra je c to ry o f a b ulle t th ro u g h a

5b o d y

. T h e tria l c o u rt d id n ot a b u se its d isc re tio n wh e n it a llo we d he r to sh a re h e r

o p i n i o n o f wh y th e a

u to p sy did n o t re v e a l a n y b ulle t fra g m e n ts in th e wo u n d

b e twe e n P o rte r’s sh o uld e r b la d e s. S e e Willia m s v . S ta te

, 2 7 9 G a

. 7 3 1

, 7 3 2 (2 )

(6 2 0 S E2 d 8 1 6 ) (2 0 0 5 ); Na ssa r v

. S ta te

, 2 5 3 Ga

. 3 5 (3 ) (3 1 5 S E2 d 9 03 ) (1 9 8 4 ). 3

3

. Jo h n so n a lso a sse rts th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n it a d m itte d e v id e n c e

o f th e p h o to g ra

p h ic lin e u p in wh ic h S m ith id e n tifie d Jo h n so n a s th e a ssa ila n t.

Jo h n so n c la im s th a t th e lin e u p wa s u n d u ly su g g e s tiv e , a n d his c la im o n th a t

issu e wa s th e su b

je c t o f a m o tio n to su p pre ss a n d a p re tria l h e a rin g

. We k n o w

th a t th e tria l c o u rt c o n sid e re d a n d re je c te d Jo hn so n ’s c la im th a t th e lin e u p wa s

u n d uly su g g e stiv e , bu t we d o n o t k n o w wh a t e v id e n c e wa s c o n s i d e r e d b y th e

tria l c o u rt b e c a

u se Jo h n so n h a s fa ile d to in c lu d e a c o p y o f th e tra n sc rip t o f th e

p re tria l h e a rin g in th e re c o rd

. No r d id Jo h n so n m o v e to su p p le m e n t th e re c o rd

a fte r th e S ta te p o in te d o ut th e a b se n c e o f th a t tra n sc rip t. It is th e b u rd e n o f th e

3 Johnson also contends that the m edical exam iner should not have been allowed to speculate that the a

bsence of a b ullet hole in the seatback of Porter’s car m ight be e xplained
if the c ar was o f the t y

p e t h a t had headrests separate f rom the seatbacks, so t hat t he bullet
could have passed between the h eadrest and the seatback. But in addition to testif y ing about opinions based on f

a cts within her own personal knowledge, an expert wit n e s s ma y also provide her hy

pothetical opinion assum ing f acts adm itted into evidence at trial. See Peters

v. State, 268 Ga. 414, 415 (1) (490 SE2d 94) (1997). The State introduced p hotographic
evidence t hat, in f

act, there was a gap between the h eadrest and seatback of the driver’s seat of Porter’s car, a nd the trial court did n ot a b use its discretion when it allowed the testim ony at issue.

6a

p p e lla n t to e n su re th a t th e re c o r d i s c om p le te

, a nd “ [w] h e n th is is n o t d o n e ,

th e re is n o th in g fo r th e a

p p e lla te c o u rt to re v ie w.” Ho w e v. S ta te

, 2 5 0 Ga

. 8 1 1

,

8 1 4 (2 ) (3 0 1 S E2 d 2 8 0 ) ( 1 9 8 3 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e

re c o rd to su g ge st th a t th e p h oto gra p h ic lin e u p wa s u n d u ly su gg e stiv e , a n d th e

issu e s th a t Jo h n so n ra ise s th a t a re c o n ta in e d in th e re c o rd (su c h a s th e le n g th o f

tim e th a t p a sse d b e twe e n th e m u rd e r a n d th e lin e u p , th e fa ilu re o f th e lin e u p to

in c lu de ph o to g ra

p h s o f Cla rk a n d Re e se , a n d S m ith ’s a b ility to id e ntify th e

p e rp e tra to r wh e n sh e h a d b e e n a b usin g d ru g s o n th e e v e n in g th a t th e c rim e s to o k

p la c e ) a re n o t fa c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d wh e n d e te rm in in g if a lin e u p wa s u n d u ly

su g g e stiv e , b u t ra th e r a re fa c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d in e va lu a tin g th e lik e lih o o d

o f m isid e n tific a tio n

. 4 S e e G ib so n v. S ta te

, 2 8 3 Ga

. 3 7 7

, 3 78 -3 7 9 (2 ) (6 5 9 S E2 d

3 7 2 ) (2 0 0 8 ). A n d wh e re a n id e n t i f i c a t io n p ro c e d ure is no t u n d u ly su g g e stiv e ,

it is n o t n e c e ssa ry f

o r a t r i a l c o u rt p re se n te d with a m o tio n to su p p re ss to

c o n sid e r wh e th e r th e r e wa s a su b sta n tia l lik e lih o o d o f irre p a ra b le

m isid e n tific a tio n

. Willia m s v

. S ta te

, 2 86 Ga

. 8 8 4

, 8 8 8 (4 ) (b ) (6 9 2 S E2 d 3 7 4 )

(2 0 1 0 ). As a re su lt, th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t e rr wh e n it d e n ie d Jo h n so n ’s m o tio n

4 A copy of t he photographic lineup i s included i n t h e record, b ut Johnson does not allege, nor do we f

ind, that there is any

thing about any of the photographs that would have
led Sm i th to the virtually inevitable identif ication of Johnson as t he perpetrator. Indeed, the

m en depicted in the photographs are all of a sim i lar appearance.

7to su p p re ss S m ith ’s p re tria l id e n tific a tio n o f h is p h o to g ra p h, an d it wa s fo r th e

ju ry to d e c id e wh a t w e ig h t to giv e th a t id e ntific a tio n

. S e e Willia m s v. S ta te

, 2 9 0

Ga . 5 33 , 5 3 6-5 3 7 (2 ) (a ) (7 2 2 S E2 d 8 4 7 ) (2 0 12 ). 5

4

. F in a lly

, Jo h n so n c on te nd s th a t h is tria l la wy e r wa s in e ffe c tiv e b e c a use

h e fa ile d to o bje c t to t w o p o rtio n s of th e p ro se c u to r’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n t. T o

p re v a il o n a c la im o f i n e f f e c tiv e a ssista n c e , Jo h n so n m u st p ro v e b oth th a t th e

p e rfo rm a n c e of h is la wy e r wa s d e fic ie n t a n d th a t h e wa s p re ju d ic e d b y th is

d e fic ie n t p e rfo rm a n c e

. S tric k la n d v

. Wa sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U. S

. 6 6 8

, 68 7 (III) (1 0 4

S Ct 2 0 5 2

, 8 0 L E 2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ). T o pro v e th a t th e pe rfo rm a n c e o f his la wy e r

wa s d e fic ie nt, Jo h nso n m u st sh o w th a t th e la wy e r p e rfo rm e d h is d u tie s a t tria l

in a n o b j e c tiv e ly u n re a so n a

b le wa y , c o n sid e rin g a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s, a n d in th e

l i g h t o f p re v a ilin g p ro fe ssio n a l n o rm s. Id

. a t 6 8 7 -6 8 8 (III) (A). S e e a lso

Kim m e lm a

n v

. Mo rriso n, 4 7 7 U. S

. 3 6 5

, 3 8 1 (II) (C) (1 0 6 S C t 2 5 7 4

, 91 LE2 d

3 0 5 ) (1 9 8 6). An d to p ro v e th a t h e wa s p re ju d ic e d by th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f h i s

la wy e r, Jo h n so n m

u st sh o w “ a re a so n a

ble p ro b a b ility th a t, b u t fo r c ou n s e l’s

5 Johnson also alleges that h is trial lawy er w as inef f ective be c a u s e he f

ailed to investigate or object to the adm ission of the photographic lineup, but this allegation is belied by t he record, which s hows t hat Johnson’s lawy er d id, in f act

, seek to s uppress Sm ith’s
identif ication of Johnson based upon the alleged suggestive nature o f the l i n e u p. See

W i lliam s v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 775 (3) (482 SE2d 288) (1997).

8u n p ro fe ssio n a l e rro rs, th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g wo uld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t.

A re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility is a p ro b a

b ility su ffic ie n t to u n d e rm in e c o nfid e n c e in

th e o u tc o m e .” S tric k la n d

, 4 6 6 U. S

. a t 6 9 4 (III) (B). S e e a lso Willia m s v

. Ta y lo r,

5 2 9 U. S

. 3 6 2

, 3 9 1 (III) (1 2 0 S Ct 1 4 9 5

, 1 4 6 L E2 d 3 89 ) (2 0 00 ). Th is b u rd e n is

a h e a v y o ne , se e Kim m e lma n , 4 7 7 U. S

. a t 3 82 (II) (C), a n d Jo h n so n fa lls fa r

sh o rt o f c a rry in g it.

F irst, Jo h nso n c la im s th a t h is tria l la wy e r sh o u ld h a v e o b je c te d wh e n th e

p ro se c u to r sa id :

I su bm it to y o u [ t h a t th e le a d de te c tiv e ] wo u ld n ot h a v e fa b ric a te d a d e sc rip tio n [m a d e b y a n e y e w itn e ss of th e a ssa ila n t]

. He h a s b e e n d o i n g th is fo r 22 y e ars. He k n o ws th e re is so m e b o d y
ta k in g d o wn e ve ry th in g h e sa y s.

. . . He k n o w s th a t if h e in te n tio n a lly fa lsifie d so m e th in g , i t’s g o in g to c o m e b a c k to b ite
h im in th e b utt. . . . S o I su b m it to y o u h e d id n o t in te n tio n a lly p u t

a n y th in g in h is te stim o n y th a t wa s a lie

.

Jo h n so n a s s e r

t s th a t th is a

rg u m e n t a m o u n te d to im

pro p e r b o lste rin g o f a w itn e ss,

b u t it is n o t im

p ro p e r fo r c o un s e l t o u rg e th e ju ry to fin d th a t a witn e ss wa s

tru th fu l b a se d u p o n th e e v id e n c e

. S e e Ro u se v. S ta te

, 2 7 5 Ga

. 6 05

, 6 0 7 (6 ) (5 7 1

S E2 d 3 5 3 ) (2 0 0 2 ). H e re , th e p ro se c u to r d id n o t p ro v id e he r p e rso n a l o p in io n

a b o u t th e le a d d e te c tiv e ’s v e ra c ity

, b u t ra th e r “ su b m it[te d ] ” to th e ju ry th a t it

sh o u ld fin d th a t th e d e te c tiv e wa s tru th f u l b a se d up o n fa c ts c o n ta in e d in th e

9re c o rd

. As a re su lt, th e p ro se c u to r’s a rg u m e nt a bo u t th e le a d d e te c tiv e wa s n o t

im p ro p e r. S e e Mo ore v

. S ta te

, 2 7 8 Ga

. 3 9 7

, 4 0 0 (2 ) (e ) (6 0 3 SE2 d 2 28 ) (2 0 0 4 ).

Jo h n so n a lso c la im s th a t h is tria l la wy e r sh o u ld h a v e o b je c te d wh e n th e

p ro se c u to r a rg u e d th a t th e ju ry sh o u ld n o t h o ld it a g a in st th e S ta te th a t m a n y o f

its witn e sse s we re e ith e r d ru g u se rs o r p e op le w h o so ld d ru g s. Ac c o rd in g to th e

p ro se c u to r’s a rg u m e n t, e v e n th o u g h su c h p e o p le m ig h t n o t b e th e m ost re lia b le

witn e sse s, it wa s Jo h n so n wh o c h o se to a sso c ia te with th e m

. Wh ile Jo h n so n

a sse rts th a t th is a rg u m e n t im p ro p e rly p u t h is c h a ra c te r a t issu e , p ro se c u to rs h a v e

wid e la titu d e in c o n d u c tin g c lo sin g arg um e n t, an d th e y m ay c o m m e n t u p o n a n d

d ra w de d u c tio n s fro m th e e v id e n c e p re se n te d to th e ju ry

. Se e Da v is v

. S ta te

, 2 8 5

Ga

. 3 4 3

, 3 4 7 (7 ) (6 7 6 S E 2 d 21 5 ) (2 0 09 ). He re , th e pro se c u to r’s a rg u m e n t wa s

b a se d o n th e fa c ts in e v id e n c e a n d wa s n o t im p ro pe r. An d be c a

u se th e

a rg u m e n ts m a d e b y th e S ta te in c lo sin g we re n o t im p ro p e r, th e y d id n o t re q u ire

a n y c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n b y th e tria l c o urt, an d th e fa ilu re to m a k e a n o b je c tio n

to th o se a rg u m e n ts c a

n n o t c o n stitu te in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e

. S e e Sc o tt v. S ta te

,

2 9 0 Ga . 8 83 , 8 8 9 (7 ) (a ) (7 25 S E2 d 3 0 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

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

10De c id e d F e b ru a ry 2 , 2 0 1 5
– Re c o n sid e ra tio n d e n ie d F e b ru a ry 1 6 , 2 0 1 5

.

Mu rd e r. F u lto n S u p e rio r Co u rt. Be fo re Ju d g e La n e

.

La w Firm o f S h e in & Bra n d e n b u rg , Ma rc ia G. S h e in

, Eliz a b e th A.

Bra n d e n b u rg , fo r a

p p e lla n t.

P a u l L. Ho wa rd , Jr., Distric t Atto rn e y , P a ig e Re e se Wh ita k e r, Arth u r C.

Wa lto n , Assist a n t D istric t Atto rn e y s, S a m u e l S

. Ole n s, Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l,

P a tric ia B. Atta wa y Bu rto n , D e p u ty Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l, P a u laK. S m ith , S e n io r

Assista n t Atto rn e y G e ne ra l, Mic h a e l A. Old h a m , Assista n t Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l,

fo r a p p e lle e

.

11