SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, M ERCI ER and C OOM ER, 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

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

Septem b er 4, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A1 12 2 . DAVIS v . THE STATE.

M E R C I E R , J u dg e.

Fo l l owi n g a ju ry t ri al

, Art h u r Dav i s w a s co n v ict ed o f ag g rav at ed s ex u al

b a t t e r y. 1 F o l l o wi ng t h e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, Dav i s fi l ed t h i s ap p eal

,

c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t

, t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred b y refu s i n g to

g i v e a req u es t ed ju ry ch arg e an d t h at h e rece i v e d i n effect iv e as si s t an ce o f co u n s el

.

Fi n d in g n o erro r, we affi rm

.

1

. Dav i s arg u es t h at t h e ev i d en ce was i n s uffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt h i s co n vi ct i o n fo r

ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery

.

On ap pel l at e rev i ew o f a cri m i n al co nv i ct i o n, we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n

t h e li g ht m o st f

a v o rab l e t o t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, an d t h e d efen d an t n o

1 Th e ju ry fo un d Dav is n o t g u i l t y

o f rap e.l o n g er en jo y s t h e p r e s u m

p t i o n o f i n n ocen ce. W e do n o t wei g h th e

ev i d en ce o r ju dg e t h e cred i b i l it y of w i t nes s es

, b u t d et erm i n e o n l y i f th e

ev i d en ce was s u ffi ci en t fo r a rat i o n al t ri er o f fact t o fi n d t h e d efen d an t

g u i l ty o f t h e o ffen s es ch arg ed b ey o nd a reas o n ab l e d o u bt

.

Di xo n v

. S t a t e

, 3 0 3 G a. Ap p

. 5 1 7 (6 9 3 SE2 d 9 00 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (ci tat i o n s o m i t t ed ). So

v i ewed

, t h e ev i d en ce s h o ws t h e fo ll o w i n g

. O n A ug u s t 1 5

, 2 0 1 5

, th e v i ct i m was

s p en di n g t i m e wi t h fri en d s

, i ncl u d i n g Dav i s

, at h er b o y fri en d ’ s ho u s e. Aft er t h ey h ad

b een at t h e h o u se fo r a few h ou rs

, t h e g ro u p d eci d ed to g o t o W affl e Ho u s e, b u t t h e

v i ct i m s ai d t hat s h e was t i red

, h ad “ h ad t o o m u ch t o d ri n k ” an d was g oi n g to s t ay at

t h e ho u s e t o s l eep

. Sh e t h en t o o k a s ho wer an d wen t to s l eep i n h er b o y fri en d ’ s b ed

,

wh i ch was u p s t ai rs

. Dav i s s t ay ed at t he h o u s e.

Th e v i ct i m w o ke to s o m eo n e o n t o p o f h er h av i n g s ex wi t h h er, b u t s h e d i d n ot

k n o w w h o i t was b ecau se i t was d ark i n t h e ro o m

. Sh e n o t ed t h at t h e as s ai l a n t w a s

“ m u ch t h i n n er” t h an h er b oy fri en d

, an d s h e cal l ed her bo y fri en d ’ s n am e. Aft er t h e

v i ct i m cal l ed h er b o y fri en d ’ s n am e rep eat ed l y

, t h e as s ai l a n t l e a n ed d o w n an d s ai d

“ Sh h

, i t ’ s Art h ur.” Th e v i ct i m t ri ed t o pu s h t h e as s ai l an t o ff o f her an d t h ey fo u g h t fo r

a few m i n ut es

. T h e n t h e v ict im h eard a d oo r cl o se d o wn s t ai rs

, aft er wh i ch s h e

s cream ed an d t h e as s ai lan t ran fro m t h e ro o m

. A t t ri al

, t h e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at s h e d id

2n o t rem em

ber t he as s ai l an t p erfo rm i n g o ral s ex o n h e r a n d t h at s h e d i d n ot co n s en t

t o v ag in al o r o ral s ex wi t h t h e as s ai l an t.

Aft er ret u rn i n g fr o m W affl e Ho u s e, m em b ers o f t he g ro u p wi t n es s ed Dav i s

wal k i n g d o wn st ai rs

. A fri en d of t h e v i ct im t es t i fi ed th at s h e t h o ug h t i t was u n u s u al

“ [b ] ecau se [Dav i s ] s h o u l d n’ t be u ps t ai rs b ecau s e i t ’ s [t he b o y fri en d ’ s ] h o u s e an d [t h e

v i ct i m ] was u p t here.” Th e v i ct i m ’ s b o y fri en d t es t i fi ed t hat Dav i s ap peared “ [l ] i k e h e

was i n a h u rry

t o g et b ack d o w n t o wh ere h e was wh en we l eft h i m .”

Di s o ri en t ed

, t h e v i ct i m ro s e fro m t h e b ed an d

, aft er a few m i n u t e s

, wen t

d o wn s t ai rs

. M em

b ers o f t h e gro u p o b s erv ed t h at sh e w as “ h y st eri cal ,” “ cry i n g ” an d

“ t erri fi ed .” Th e v i ct i m

as k ed h er b oy fri en d i f h e h ad b een i n t h e b ed ro o m wi t h h er,

an d h e res p o n d ed t h at h e h ad n o t , as h e h ad o n l y ju s t ret u rn ed fro m W affl e Ho u s e.

Th e vi ct i m ran t o Dav i s an d “ pu n ch ed hi m i n th e face a co u p le o f t i m es .” Her

b o y fri en d an d a m em

b er o f t h e g ro up p u ll ed t h e v ict i m o f f o f Da v i s

, an d s h e t o ld

t h em wh at h ap p en ed

. Th e v i ct i m ’ s b o y fri en d t h en as k ed Dav i s wh at h ap p en ed

, i f h e

h ad rap ed t h e v i ct i m

, an d D av i s r e s p o n ded : “ [a] l l I d i d w as eat h er p

__ _ _ .” Her

b o y fri en d cal l ed t h e p ol ice, Dav i s l eft

, an d wh en t h e p o l i ce arri v ed t h e v i c t i m

reco u n ted t o t h em

wh at h ad o ccu rred

.

3Fo l l owi n g h er c o nv ers at i o n wi t h t he p ol i ce, t h e v i ct i m s u b m it t ed t o a s ex u al

as s au l t ex am i n at i o n

. DNA s wab s t ak en fro m th e v i ct i m ’ s “ v ag in al -cerv i cal ” area an d

h er l ab i a m i no ra m at ch ed a DNA s am p le t ak en fro m

Dav is

.

D a v i s c l ai m s t h at th ere was in s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o s u pp o rt h i s ag g rav at ed

s ex u al b at t ery co n vi ct i o n b ecau s e t h e St at e fai l ed t o p r es en t ev id en ce t h at h e

p en et rat ed t h e v i ct im ’ s s ex u al o rg an wi t h h is t o n g u e o r an y fo rei gn o b ject

, p u rs u an t

t o O CGA § 16 -6 -2 2 .2

. 2 Dav i s ci t es Li g er v. S ta t e

, 3 1 8 Ga. Ap p . 3 7 3 (7 3 4 SE2 d 8 0 )

(2 0 1 2), d i s ap p ro v ed o f o n ot her g ro u n d s b y Ma r t i n v. M c L a ug h l i n

, 2 9 8 Ga. 4 4

, 4 6

(fn . 3 ) (7 79 SE2 d 2 9 4 ) (2 0 15 ), t o s u pp o rt h is cl ai m t h at t h e St at e fai l ed t o p u t fo rt h

e v i d en ce o f pen et rat i o n o f an y t h i n g o t h er th an hi s p en i s

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, he ci t es t o a

s en t en ce i n Li

g er t h at s t at es t h at t o s ho w p en et rat i o n d u ri ng rap e “ i t i s n o t n eces s ary

t h at t h e v ag i n a s h al l b e en t ered

, b ut an en t eri n g o f t h e an t eri o r o f t he o rg an , k n o wn

as t h e v u l v a o r l ab i a, is s u ffi ci en t .” Id

. at 3 7 6 (2 ) (ci t at i on an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed ).

Ho wev er, t h e ci t ed s en t en ce co m es fro m a d i v i si o n o f Li g er th at i s p h y s ical p reced en t

o n l y an d t h erefo re i s n o t b i nd i n g au t h o ri t y . See Co u rt o f Ap peal s Ru l e 3 3 .2 (a) (2 );

2 “ A p ers o n co m

m i t s t h e o ffen se o f ag g rav at ed sex u al b at t ery wh en h e o r s h e

i n t en t i o n al l y p en et rat es wi t h a fo rei g n ob ject t h e s e x u al o rg an o r an us o f an o t h er

p ers o n wi t h o u t t he co n s en t o f t h at p ers o n .” OCGA § 1 6 -6 -2 2 .2 (b ).

4Da vi s v. S t a t e

, 2 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. 3 4 5

, 3 4 7 (3 ) (5 3 5 SE2 d 5 2 8) (2 00 0 ). No n et h el es s

, we

fi nd n o m eri t t o t h i s arg u m en t

.

“ P en et rat i o n h o wev er s l i g h t wi l l s u ffi ce t o s at i s fy t h e s t at u to ry p en et rat i o n

el em en t o f OCGA § 1 6-6 -2 2 .2 an d p en et rat i o n m ay be p ro ved b y i n d i rect o r

ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce.” Ma d i s o n v. S t a t e

, 32 9 Ga. Ap p

. 8 56

, 8 6 3 (1 ) (c) (7 6 6 SE2 d

2 0 6 ) (2 01 4 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Th e vi ct i m d i d no t t es t i fy t h at Dav i s

p en et rat ed h er v a g i n a wi t h h i s t o n g u e, b ut s h e t es t i fi ed t h at sh e h ad b een d ri n k i n g

al c o h ol an d was v ery t i red

, fel l as l eep an d awo k e t o Dav i s h av i n g v ag i nal s ex wi th

h er.

In res p o ns e t o q u es t i o n i n g b y t h e v i ct i m ’ s b o y fri en d

, Dav i s s t at ed

, “ [a] l l I d id

was eat h er p

_

_ .” W h en ex am i n i n g s lan g st at em en t s

, i t i s i m p o rt an t t o rem em

b er t h at

wi t n es s es are n o t req u i red t o des cri b e th e act s co n s t i t u t i n g th e

co m m i s s i o n o f cri m es in s t at u to ry o r t ech n i cal l an g uag e in o rd er t o

p ro v e t h e co m

m i s si o n o f s u ch act s

. Rat h er, t h e t erm s u s ed b y wi t n es ses

t o d es cri be cri m i n al act s m ay b e co n s i d ered i n co nt ex t t o p ro v i d e

m ean i n g

, an d j u ro rs can b e p res u m ed t o h av e so m e k n owl ed g e o f s l an g

ex p res s i o n s i n co m

m o n p arl an ce i n t he v ern acu l ar.

Ch i two o d v. S ta te

, 3 5 2 G a. Ap p

. 2 1 8

, 2 2 0 (1 ) (a) (8 34 SE2 d 3 3 4 ) (2 0 19 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). J u ro rs can b e p res u m ed t o h av e s o m e k no wl ed g e th at Dav is ’ s

5s t at em en t was m ean t t o co n v ey t h at h e p erfo rm ed o ral s ex o n t h e v i ct i m

. Fu rt h erm o re,

s wab s t ak en fro m t he v i ct i m ’ s “ v ag i n al / cerv i cal ” area an d “ l ab i a m i n o ra” m at ch ed a

DNA s am p l e t ak en fro m Dav i s

. Here, b as ed o n t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed

, i n cl ud i n g t h e

DN A r e s u l t s

, t es t i m o n y t h at t he v i ct i m was i n cap aci t at ed d u e t o s l eep an d al co h ol

co n su m p t i o n

, an d Dav is ’ s s t at em en t, th e ju ry was au th o ri zed to co n cl u d e t h at Dav i s

co m m i t t ed ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery o n t h e v ict i m b y pl aci n g h i s t o n g u e, a fo rei g n

o b ject

, i n h er vag i n a wi th o u t her co n s en t

. See id .; Jo h n s o n v. S t a t e

, 35 1 Ga. Ap p

. 6 9 0,

6 9 4 (8 3 2 SE2 d 6 7 6) (2 0 1 9 ) (wh en a v ict i m i s i n t o x icat ed an d h er wi l l i s t em p o rari l y

l o s t fro m i n t o x i cat i on

, s h e i s p h y s i cal l y or m en t al l y u n ab l e t o g i v e co n s en t );

McW il l i a ms v. S t a t e , 3 04 Ga. 5 0 2 , 5 06 (2 ) (b ) (8 2 0 SE2 d 3 3 ) (2 0 18 ).

2

. Dav i s al s o al l eg es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt fai l ed to g iv e h is req u es t ed ju ry ch arg e

reg ard i n g s exual b at t ery as a l es s er i n cl u d ed o ffen se o f ag g rav at ed sex u al b at t ery

. Th e

o ffen s e of sex u al b at t ery i s i ncl u d ed i n t he o ffen s e of ag g rav at ed s ex ual b at t ery as a

m at t er o f l aw, t h e o n ly d i fferen ce b ei n g t h at ag g rav at ed s ex ual bat t ery co n t ai n s t h e

ad d it i o n al el em en t o f p en et rat i o n

. See S mi t h v. S t a t e

, 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 92

, 3 9 4 (2 ) (7 1 3

SE2 d 4 5 2) (2 0 1 1); OCGA § § 1 6 -6 -2 2 .1 (b ); 1 6 -6 -2 2 .2 ; 1 6 -1 -6 (1 ).

“ To au t h o ri ze a req ues ted ju ry i n s tru ct i on

, t h ere n eed on l y b e s l i g ht ev i d en ce

s u p p ort i n g t h e t h eo ry of t h e ch arg e. W h et h er t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed i s s uffi ci en t to

6au t h o ri ze t h e g i vi n g o f a ch arg e i s a q u es t i o n o f l aw.” Red d i ck v. S ta t e , 3 0 1 Ga. 9 0,

(1 ) (7 9 9 SE2 d 7 5 4 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n c t u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Ho wev er, “ a ch arg e

req u es t m u s t b e ap t

, a co rrect s t at em en t o f l aw, an d p reci s el y ad ju s ted t o s o m e t h eo ry

i n t h e c a s e

. I f t h e ev i d en ce s h o ws ei t her t he co m p l et ed o ffen s e as i n d ict ed o r n o

o ffen s e at al l

, t h e tri al co u rt s ho u l d n o t i n s tru ct t h e j u ry o n a l es s e r g r a d e o f t h e

cri m e.” S mi t h , s u p ra at 3 9 5 (2 ) (ci t at i o ns an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Dav i s ’ s d efen s e at t ri al was t h at h e p erfo r m e d co ns en s ual oral s ex o n t h e

v i ct i m

, a n d t h a t h e di d n o t co m m i t ag g rav at ed s ex u al bat t ery b ecau s e t h e s t at u t e

req u i res t h at a “ fo rei gn o b ject ” p en et rat e t h e s ex u al o rg an o r an u s o f an o t h er p ers o n,

an d he arg u ed t h at “ a t o n g u e i s n o t a fo rei g n ob j e ct .” See O CGA § 1 6 -6 -2 2 .2

.

Ho we v e r, “ [t ] he t erm ‘ fo rei g n o b ject ’ i n cl ud es n o t o n l y i n an i m at e i n s t ru m en t s

, b ut

al s o a p ers o n ’ s b o d y p art s

, s uch as a fi n g er.” Ma di s o n

, s u p r a a t 8 6 3 ( 1 ) (b ) (fn 3 )

(ci t at i o n an d p u nc t u a t i o n o m i t t ed ). Dav i s’ s t o n g u e, o n e o f h is b o dy p art s

, was a

fo rei gn o b

ject p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 16

- 6

- 2 2

. 2

. S e e i d

. As s u ch

, Dav i s p res en t s n o

v al i d arg u m en t as t o wh y t h e s ex u al b at t ery ch arg e wo u l d h av e b e e n a p p ro p ri at e

g i v en t h e fact s o f h is p art icu l ar cas e an d h i s t h eo ry o f t h e cas e as arg ued at t ri al

. See

S mi th , s up ra at 3 9 5 -3 9 6 (2 ).

73

. Dav i s cl ai m s t h at h e recei v ed i neffect i v e as si st an ce o f t ri al co u n s el

. To

s u cceed o n t hi s cl ai m he m u s t d em o n s t rat e t hat co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was d efi ci en t

a n d t hat h i s co un s el ’ s defi ci en t p erfo rm an ce was p reju d i ci al t o t he d efen s e. S e e

Ja cks o n v. S ta te , 3 0 6 Ga. 2 66 , 2 7 2 (5 ) (8 3 0 SE2 d 9 9) (2 01 9 ).

W h en rev i ewi n g co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce, we ap p l y a s t ro n g p res u m p t i o n

t h at co u n s e l ’s r ep res en tat i o n was w it hi n th e wi d e ran g e o f reas o n ab l e

p ro fes s io nal as s i s t an ce. As s u ch

, a t act ical d eci si o n wi l l n o t fo rm th e

b as i s fo r an i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el cl ai m u n les s i t was s o

p at en t l y u nreas o nab l e t h at n o co m pet en t at t o rn ey wo ul d h av e ch o s en i t

.

Id

. (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). “ W e accep t t h e tri al co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n d i ng s

an d cred i b i l i t y d et erm i n at i o n s un l es s cl earl y erro n eo u s

, b u t we i n d ep en d en t l y ap p l y

t h e l eg al p ri n ci p l es t o t h e fact s .” S i mmo n s v. S t a t e

, 2 9 9 Ga. 3 7 0

, 3 75 (3 ) (7 8 8 SE2 d

4 9 4 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

( a ) D a v i s cl ai m s th at h i s co u n s el fai l ed t o “ p ro p erl y ” o b ject t o ev id en ce t h a t

Dav is d i d n o t at t en d a s ch ed u l ed m eet i n g wi t h a p ol i ce o ffi cer. At t ri al

, t h e p ro s ecu t o r

as k ed t h e i n v es t i g at i n g o ffi cer if s h e ev er tri ed t o m ak e co n t act wi t h Dav i s

. W h en t h e

o ffi cer rep li ed affi rm at iv el y

, t h e p ro s ecu t o r as k ed t h e o ffi cer t o t el l t h e ju ry ab o u t t h e

co n tact . Dav i s ’ s co un s el o b ject ed

, an d a v o i r d i re ex am in at i o n o ccu rred o u t s i d e t h e

8p res en ce o f t h e ju ry

, wh erei n t h e o ffi cer s t at ed t h at s h e s et u p a ti m e an d d at e t o m eet

wi t h Dav i s b u t h e fai l ed t o ap p ear. Dav i s ’ s co u n s el co n t i n u ed hi s o b j ect i o n b ut

u l t i m at el y s t at ed t hat h e wo u l d n o t o b j ect t o t h e wi tn es s s i m

p l y s tat i ng t h at t h ey h ad

s et u p a t i m e t o m eet an d Dav i s d i d n o t m eet wi th h er. Th e t ri al co u rt al l o wed t h e

t es t i m o ny , an d wh en t he ju ry ret u rn ed

, t h e o ffi cer t es t i fi ed t h at s h e h ad s ch ed u l ed a

t i m e t o m eet wi t h Dav i s b u t t h at t h ey “ d i d n ’ t m eet

. ”

Dav i s fai l s to p u t fo rt h arg u m en t as t o ho w t he o u t co m e o f h i s t ri al m ay h av e

b e e n d i fferen t i f h i s tri al co u n sel had “ p ro p erl y ” ob ject ed

. See Ja cks o n

, s u p ra (“ i n

o r d e r t o s h o w t h at h e was p reju d i ced b y t h e p erfo rm an ce of h i s lawy er, a cl a i m a n t

m u st p ro ve a reas o n ab le p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

, b u t fo r co u ns el ’ s u n p ro fes s i o n al erro rs

, t h e

res u l t o f t h e pro ceed i n g wo u ld h av e b een d ifferen t ”) (ci t at i o n a n d p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). As Dav i s fai l ed t o s at i s f y t h e s eco nd pro n g

, h i s cl ai m t h at t ri al co u n sel ’ s

p erfo rm an ce was d efi ci en t fai l s

. See i d

. (an ap p el lat e co u rt n e e d n o t ad d res s b o th

p ro n gs i f t h e d efen d an t m ak es an i n s u ffi ci en t s h o wi n g o n o n e); S i mmo n s

, s u p ra at

3 7 5 -3 7 6 (3 ) (d efen d an t ’ s cl ai m t h at t ri al co u n s el was i n effect i v e fo r n ot o bject i n g to

“ fai l u re t o co m e fo rward ” ev i d en ce d id n o t s at i s fy seco n d p ro ng o f req u i red tes t

wh en

, g i v en ev i d en ce i n cas e, t h ere was n o reas o n ab l e pro b ab il i ty o f a d i fferen t res u l t

at t ri al ).

9(b ) Dav is arg u es t h at h is t ri al co u n s el v i o lat ed h i s r i g h t t o rem ai n s i l en t by

s t at i n g du ri n g vo i r d i re an d i n hi s o p en in g s tat em en t th at Dav i s wo ul d tes t i fy at t ri al

.

W h i l e q u es t io n i n g p ro s pect i v e ju ro rs

, Dav i s ’ s co u n s el as k ed i f an y o f t h e ju ro r s

wo u l d l i k e t o h ear Dav is “ g et o n t h i s w i t n e s s s tan d an d t el l h i s v ers io n o f wh at

o ccu rred .” Ap paren t l y

, s ev eral ju ro rs res p o nd ed affi rm at iv el y

. Defen s e co u n s el al s o

as s ert ed i n o p en i ng s t a t e m en t s t h at Dav i s wo ul d t es t i fy at t ri al

. Ho w ev er, Dav i s

u l t i m at el y

ch o s e n o t t o t es t i fy . Du ri ng h i s cl o s i ng arg u m en t

, Dav i s ’ s co u n s el s t at ed

t h at wh il e h e h ad i n i t ial l y s ai d th at Dav i s wo u l d t es t i fy

, “ [a] ft er t h e l ack o f ev i d en ce

t h at was p res en t ed i n t hi s cas e, aft er co ns u l t i ng wi t h [h i s co un s el ]

, I i n fo rm ed [Dav i s ]

t h at he s h o u l d n o t t es t i fy b ecau s e o f t he lack of ev i d en ce t h at ’ s p res en t ed i n t h i s

cas e.”

As a g en eral ru l e, we d o n o t s eco n d-g u es s d efen s e t ri al s t rat eg i es

, p art i cu larl y

wi t h res p ect t o o p en i ng s t at em en t s an d cl o s i n g arg u m en t s. See W a t ki n s v. S t a t e

, 2 8 5

Ga. 1 0 7

, 1 1 0 (3 ) (b ) (6 74 SE2 d 2 7 5 ) (2 0 0 9 ). As wi t h Wa t k i n s

, t h e d eci s io n n o t to

p res en t Dav i s ’ s t es t i m o n y “ was a reas o n ab l e s t rat eg i c d eci s i o n i n l i g h t o f co u n sel ’ s

as s es s m en t o f t he cas e at t h e cl o s e o f t h e St at e’ s c a s e an d, co n s eq u en t l y

, can n ot

s u p p ort an i n effect iv e as s i s tan ce o f co un s el cl ai m

. ” Id

.

10(c) Dav i s cl ai m s t hat h i s t ri al co u n sel was in effect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o o b ject t o h i s

“ cu s t o d i al s t at em en t s t h at were t h e p ro d u ct o f t h e eq ui val en t o f i n terro g at i o n .” Th e

arres t i n g o ffi cer t es t i fi ed t h at h e wen t t o Dav i s ’ s h om e t o arres t h i m an d o b s erv ed t h at

Dav is ’ s ch i l d ren were i n t h e h om e. He es co rt ed Dav i s t o t h e p at ro l v eh icl e b ut d i d n ot

h an dcu ff Dav i s i n fro n t o f h is ch i l d ren

. Dav i s t h an k ed t h e offi cer an d s ai d t h at h e d id

n o t s ee h is ch i ld ren v ery oft en an d t h at as a res u l t o f t h e s i t u at i o n “ bet ween h i m an d

h i s wi fe” h e “ ju s t s n ap ped . A s i t uat i o n l i k e t hat wi l l m ak e y o u s n ap .”

“ [A] s p o n t an eo u s an d un s o l i ci t ed s tat em en t n o t m ad e i n res p o n se t o an y fo rm

o f cu s t o d i al i n t erro g at i o n is n o t s u b ject t o t h e st ri ct u res of Mi ra n da an d i s ad m i s s i b l e

wi t h o u t t he warn i n g s h av i n g b een g i v en .” P hi ll i ps v. S t a t e

, 2 8 5 Ga. 2 1 3

, 2 1 5 (2 ) (6 7 5

SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 0 9). Th e o ffi cer t es t i fi ed t h at h e was no t as k i n g D a v i s a n y q ues t i o n s ;

i n s t ead

, h e an d Dav i s “ were ju s t s t il l d is c u s si n g t h e wh o le s i t u at i on ab o u t h i s

ch i l d ren

, t h at h i s ch il d ren were i n th e h o u s e

. ” Th e St at e p res en t ed ev i d en ce t h at

D av i s’ s s t at em en t was a s p o n t an eo u s co m m en t m ad e b efo re an y cu s t o d i a l

i n t erro g at i o n

, an d t h us was n o t s u b ject t o t h e st ri ct u res o f Mi r a n d a. See P i n ckn ey v.

S t a t e

, 2 5 9 G a. Ap p

. 3 1 6

, 3 1 8 (1 ) (a) (5 7 6 SE2 d 6 7 7) (2 0 0 3). Acco rd i n g ly

, Dav i s h as

n o t s h o wn t h at h is t ri al co un s el was i n effect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o ch al l en g e t h e ad m i s s i o n

11o f t h e s t at em en t . See Pen n y v. S t a t e , 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 7 2 , 7 7 6 (2 ) (c) (5 47 SE2 d 3 6 7 )

(2 0 0 1).

(d ) Dav i s cl ai m s th at h i s t ri al co u ns el was i n effect i v e fo r fai l i ng t o req u es t a

ju ry ch arg e o n t h e d efi n i t i o n of p en et rat i o n p u rs u an t t o Li g er

, s up ra. “ W h en a cl ai m

o f i n effect iv e as si s t an ce i s b as ed o n t he fai l u re t o req u es t a j u ry ch arg e, t h e rel ev an t

i n q u i ry i s wh et h er t h e ch arg e, i f i t h ad b een req ues t e d

, w a s warran t ed b y t h e

ev i d en ce, an d i f i t h ad b e e n g i v en

, wh et h er t h ere i s a reas o n ab l e pro b ab il i t y t h at i t

wo u l d h av e ch an g ed t he o u t co m e o f t h e tri al .” Br a d l ey v. S ta t e

, 3 2 2 Ga. Ap p

. 5 4 1,

5 4 5 (3 ) (a) (7 4 5 SE2 d 7 63 ) (2 0 1 3 ) ( c i t a ti o n an d p un ct u at io n o m i t t ed ). As s t at ed in

Di v is i o n 1

, t h e ci ted p ro v i s i o n o f Li g er i s p h y s i cal p rece d e n t o n l y

. An d g i v en t h e

ev i d en ce, Dav i s h as n o t s ho wn a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h a t a ch arg e bas ed o n t h e

l an g u ag e i n Li

g er

, ev en i f ap p ro p ri at e, wo u l d hav e ch an g ed t h e o u t co m e o f t h e t ri al

.

See g en eral l y S

h a w v. S t a te , 2 9 2 Ga. 8 7 1

, 8 7 7 (3 ) (c) (7 4 2 SE2 d 7 07 ) (2 0 1 3 ).

(e) Fi n al l y

, Dav i s cl ai m s t h at t h e al leg ed erro rs b y hi s t ri al co u n s el

, v i ewed

cu m u l at i v el y

, had t h e effect o f d en y i n g h i m t h e ri g h t to co u ns el

. “ Geo rg ia co u rt s

co n si d eri n g wh et h er a cri m i n al d efen d an t i s en t i t l ed to a n ew t ri al s h o u l d c o n s i d er

co l l ect i v el y t h e preju d ici al effect of tri al co u rt erro rs an d an y d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce

b y co u n s el

- at l eas t wh ere t h o se erro rs b y t h e co urt an d co u n s el in v o l v e ev i d en ti ary

12i s su es .” S t a t e v. La n e

, 3 0 8 Ga. 1 0

, 1 4 (1 ) (8 3 8 SE2 d 8 08 ) (2 0 20 ). W e h av e co n s i d ered

co l l ect i v el y an y al l eg ed d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce b y t ri al co u n s el an d co ncl u d e t h at t h e

cu m u l at i v e p reju di ci al effect o f s u ch erro rs

, i f an y

, d o es no t req u ire a n ew t ri al

. See

Lyo ns v. S t a te

, _

_ Ga. _

__ ,at * 2 2 (8 ) (a) (S2 0 A0 5 36 , d eci ded J u ne 1 , 2 0 20 ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Mi l l er

, P. J., a n d

Co o mer , J., co n cu r

.

13