W i l l i ams w as ki l l ed on J ul y 31, 2006. M i l l er w as i ndi ct ed on M ar ch 23, 2007 and 1 char ged w i t h m al i ce mur der , fel ony m ur der , aggr avat ed as s aul t , and unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a fi r ear m dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of a fel ony . H i s t r i al comm ence d on A ugus t 21, 2007, and t he j ur y r et ur ned i t s ver di ct t w o day s l at er , fi ndi ng hi m guil ty o n all count s . M i l l er w as s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent for l i fe f o r m ali ce mur der and a c ons ecut i ve t er m of i m pr i s onm ent for fi ve y ear s for unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a f i r ear m dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of a fe l ony . T he ver di ct as t o fel ony m ur der w as vaca t ed by oper at i on of l aw , M al col m v. St at e, 2 6 3 G a . 3 6 9 , 3 7 1 -3 7 2 (4 ) (4 3 4 S E 2 d 4 7 9 ) (1 9 9 3 ), an d th e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt m e rg e d w ith t he mal i ce mur der
. M i l l er t i m el y fi l ed a mot i on for new t r i al on A ugus t 30, 2007, and he amended i t on A pr i l 19, 2013. T he t r i al cour t deni ed hi s m ot i on on N ovember 5, 2013. M i l l er tim e ly f il e d a n o tice o f

a p p e a l o n N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 1 3 , an d th e c a se w a s d o c k e ted in th is C ou rt for t he A pri l 20 14 t erm and subm i t t ed fo r deci si on on t he b ri efs. In the Suprem e Court of Ge orgia

D e c id e d: O c to be r 2 0, 201 4

S1 4A 08 78 . MILLER v . THE STATE.
B LA C KW E LL , Ju st ice. E ri c Mi ll e r w a s tri e d by

a Ful to n C ountyju ryand c onvi c te d of m urd e r and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the comm ission of a fe lony, both in
c onne c ti on w ith the fata l s hooti ng of L ut he r W il li a m s. Mi ll e r a ppe a ls , c ont e ndi ng that the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d w he n i t a dm it te d c e rt a in e vi de nc e , and
a rgu in g a s w e ll th a t h e w a s de ni e d th e e ff e c ti ve a ss is tanc e of c ouns e l. U pon our
r ev i ew o f th e r eco r dan db r i ef

s , w e s ee n o er r o r , an dwe af f i r m. 12

1. V ie we d in the li ght m ost favora ble to the verdic t, the e videnc e shows th a t M il le r e nc ount e re d W il li a m s a t a n A tl a nt a a partmen t c om

pl e x onth e
even in g o f J ul y 31 , 20 06 . The two m en arg ued abo ut m on ey — Mill er claimed that William s wa s indebte d to Mille r — and in the c our s e of that argume nt, Mi ll e r p ul le d ou t a

handgu n, fi re d i nt o the gr ound , a nd be gan t o c ha se Wi ll iam s, fi ri ng a ddi ti ona l s hot s a t W il li a m s a s th e y ran. E ve ntua ll y , Mi ll e r st oppe d, to ok ai m , a nd sho t William s in the ba ck of his he ad. William s died a s a re sult of his gu ns ho t wo un d. Two eyewitnes ses — bo th of wh om k new Mil ler p erso nal ly — id e nt if ie d M il le r a s the sho ot e r, and M il le r c onf e ss e d t o hi s gi rl fr ie nd tha t h e sho t W il li a m s a ft e r the yargu e d a bout mon ey . Mi ll e r d oe s no t d is put e th a t the
e vi de nc e is le ga ll y suf

fi c ie nt to sus ta in hi s c onvi c ti ons , but c ons is te ntw ith ou r usual pra ct ic e in m

urder c ase s, w e have indepe ndently revie we d the e videnc e to
asse ss its suffici enc y. We co n cl u d e that the e videnc e wa s le gally sufficie nt to aut ho ri ze a

rati on al t r i er o f f

act to fin d b eyon d a reaso nab le do ub t th at Mil ler was g ui lty o f th e crime s o f wh ich he w as co n vi cted. S ee Jackso n v . Virg in ia, 443 U
. S. 307 , 319 (I II ) ( B ) ( 99 S C t 2 781, 61 L E 2d 5 60) (1 979)
. 2. Mi llercon ten ds th at th e tri al cou rt erred w h en it p ermitted a po lice off ic e r t o t e st if

y th a t i nve st ig a to rs id e nt if ie d so m e one kno w n a s “ L it tl e E ” a s a3

suspec t in the shooting . O ffice r Shaun Hous t o n , the fi rst police office r to respond to t h e sce ne of the shooting , t esti fie d at tria l, and whe n he starte d to
m ent io n w hat a civil ian at th e scene had said , Mil ler o bj ected o n h earsay gr ou nd s, and th e t ri al cou rt su st ain ed th e o bj ectio n. Later, Ho us to n test if iedth at in ve st ig a to rs id e nt if

ie d a sus pe c t i n the c our se of th e ir in vestig at io n. T he pro se c ut in g a tt orn e yth e na s k e d H o u s t o n w h e th e r the in ve st ig a to rs ha d “[ got te n]
a na m e , ” a nd Mi ll e r a ga in obj e c te d. A t that poi nt , th e tr ia l c ourt c aut io ne d the pr os ecuti ng atto rn ey to tr ead carefu lly, and t h e pr os ecuti ng atto rn ey then
re phr a se d hi s qu e st io n, a ski ng H ous to n a bout th e id ent ityof

th e pe rs on
sus pe c te d a t tha t t im e by in ve st ig a to rs . H ous to n re spo nde d: “T he sus pe c t [ w e nt by an ] alias [o f] ‘Li ttl e E.’ We had n ot hi ng else to go on .” Mill er d id no t o bj ect to the rephra sed question, nor to the te stim ony tha t Houston gave in re spons e to it
. Mi ll e r now argu e s, how e ve r, th a t the te st im ony a bout th e id e nt if

ic a ti on o f “Little E” as a susp ec t im plied tha t witnesse s a t the sc ene had ide ntified “L ittle E” as the s ho ot er, th at it amou n ts to hears ay, a nd th at its admiss io n was
rev ersi bl e erro r. Mi ll e r i s w ron g f

or se ve ra l r e a son s. Fi rs t, he di d no t o bj e c t t o t he te st im ony a bout w hi c h he now c om

pl a in s, a nd he ha s fa il e d to pr e se rve th e is sue4

for a ppe a l. Se e D urh a m v. State , 292 G a . 239, 240 (2) (73 4 SE 2d 3 77) (2 012)
. Sec ond, eve n if Miller ha d objec te d, O ffice r Houston did n ot say or nec essarily im pl ytha t a

nyw itne ss ha d i de nt if

ie d “L it tl e E , ” onl yth a t i nve st ig a to rs
c ons id e re d “L it tl e E ” a sus pe c t. C f. Mc K e nz ie v. State , 271 G a . 47, 48 ( 2) (51 8 SE2d 404 ) (1 9 9 9 )
. Finally , e ven to the e xtent tha t Houston im plied byhis te st im ony th a t a w itne ss ha d i de nt if

ie d “L it tl e E ” a s the sho ot e r, anye rr or in th e
a dm is si on o f tha t te st im ony w oul d ha ve be e n ha rm le ss . N otonl ydi d H ous to n
ne ve r t e st if

y th a t a nyw itne ss ha d i de nt if ie d “L it tl e E ” a s the sho ot e r, but he a ls o
nev er t es tif

iedth at Mil ler was kn ow n as “Li ttl e E.” Accord in gl y, no th in g t hat H ous to n sa id

“di re c tl yin c ul pa te d” Mi ll e r. Se e id
. A n e y e w itne ss to th e sho ot in g test if iedat tri al th at “Li ttl e E” was th e sh oo ter, an d o th er wit nes ses id en t if ied Mi ll e r a s “ L it tl e E
. ” Mo re ove r, e y e w itne ss e s s pe c if ic a ll yid e nt if

ie d M il le r a s the shooter, a nd that te stim ony, a s we ll a s the t esti m ony tha t Mille r confe ssed to his girlfriend tha t he shot Wil lia m s, rende rs it highly probable that any e rroneously
a dm it te d t e st im ony

a bout “L it tl e E ” havi ng b e e n i de nt if ie d a s a sus pe c t d id

not
c ontri but e inanym e a ni ngf ul way t o the ve rdi c t. Se e id
. a t 4 9 ( 2). Se e a ls o We e m s v. St a te , 269 G a . 577 , 579 (2 ) ( 501 SE 2d 8 06) (1 998)
.5

3. Mi lleralso con ten ds th at th e tri al cou rt er r ed when it ad m itt ed te stim ony tha t William s wa s working tw o jobs to he lp suppo rt his fa m ily , w ith wh om he had relo cated to Atlant a in th e after m ath of Hu rr ican e K at r i na. Accor di ng to Mil ler, thi s testi m on y am ou nt s to “v icti m impact” evi den ce that
w a s un fa ir ly

pr e ju di c ia l. B uta t tri a l, Mi ll e r d id not obj e c t t o th e t esti m ony

on the grounds that it w as im perm issible “victim

im pact ” evidence or unfairly prejudic ia l. Ac cordingly, Mille r fai le d to prese rve for a ppella te re viewthe cl ai m of e rr or th a t h e nowur ge s. Se e Col on v. St ate, 275 G a . A pp. 73, 75 ( 2) (61 9 SE 2d 7 73) (2 005) ; H ol m e s v. State , 271 G a . A pp. 122 , 124 -12 5 ( 4) (60 8 SE 2d 726) ( 20 04 ); She lt on v . St a te , 251 G a . A pp. 34, 38- 39 ( 4) (55 3 SE 2d 3 58) (20 01)
. 4. Mi ller also claims th at he was d eni ed th e effectiv e assi st ance of cou ns el at tria l. To pre vail on a cla im of ineffe ct ive assistance , M ille r m ust prov e both th a t the pe rf

orm a nc e of

hi s law y e r w a s de fi c ie nt a nd th a t he w a s pr e ju di c e d by th is de fi c ie nt pe rf

orm a nc e . Str ic kl a nd v. Wa shi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (I II ) (104 S Ct 2052, 80 LE 2d 67 4) (198 4). T o p rove tha t the perform anc e of his lawy er wa s defic ie nt, Mi lle r m ust show that she perform ed he r duties at tria l in
a n ob je c ti ve ly unr e a son a

bl e w a y , c ons id e ri ng a ll th e c ir c um st a nc e s, and i n t he6

li ght of pr e va il in g pr ofe ss io na l n orm s. Id
. a t 6 87- 688 (I II ) (A)
. Se e a ls o K imm e lm a n v. Mo rr is on, 477 U
. S. 365, 381 (I I) (C ) (10 6 SC t 2 574, 91 L E 2d 305) (1 986). And to prove that he w as prejudic ed bythe p er f orm anc e of his law y e r, Mi ll e r m

ust sho w “a re a son a bl e pr oba bi li ty th at , but fo r c ouns e l’ s unpro fessiona l e rrors, the re sult of the proc ee ding would h ave bee n differe nt. A re asona

ble probabili tyis a

probabilitysufficie nt to underm ine c onfidence in th e out c om e . ” Str ic kl a nd, 466 U
. S. a t 694 (I II ) ( B ). Se e a ls o W il li a m s v. T a y lo r, 529 U. S. 362, 391 (III) (1 20 SCt 1495 , 146 LE 2d 38 9) (200 0). T his burd en is a heavy o ne. S ee Kimm elma n, 47 7 U. S. at 38 2 ( II ) ( C). We con clu de th at Mil ler ha s f a il e d t o c a rryhi s bu rde n. (a) Mill er con ten ds th at hi s tr ial lawyer was in effecti ve b eca us e sh e failed to c a ll hi s m ot her a s a

w itne ss a t tri a l. H is m ot he r c oul d have te st if ie d, he
c ont e nds , th a t M il le r c utof f h is “dr e a dl oc ks” fo ur day s be for e th e m urd e r,
w hi c h w oul d have c ontra di c te d e y e w itne ss te st im ony th a t M i l l e r h a d dr e a dl oc ks at th e time of th e sh oo tin g. Bu t d ecisio ns abo ut whi ch wi tn ess es to call at tr ial “are m a tt e rs of

tr ia l stra te gy a nd ta c ti c s, a nd s uc h stra te gi c and t a c ti c a l d e c is io ns do n ota m ount

to de fi c ie ntpe rf

orm a nc e unl e ss th e y a re so u nre a son a bl e th a t n o competen t atto rn ey wou ld hav e m ade th em un dersi m ilarcircu m st ances.”7

Wa shi ngt on v . St a te , 294 G a . 560 , 566 (3 ) ( 755 SE 2d 1 60) (2 01 4) (c it a ti ons
om it te d). Se e a ls o G ib sonv. St a te , 290 G a . 6, 12 ( 6) (b) (7 17 S E 2d 4 47) (2 011)
. At the hearing on the m otion for n ew tria l, Mille r’s tria l lawy er expla ined tha t,
a lthoug h sh e di d not re c a ll e xa c tl y w hy hi s m ot he r w a s no t c a ll e d a s a w itne ss , th e la w y e r thoug htth a t the re w e re som e is sue s a bout pre c is e ly

w he n M il le r c ut of f hi s dr eadlo cks . A no th er lawyer wh o r epr esent ed Mi llerbef or e tri al (b ut was
o n med i cal le av e du r i n g th e t r i al ) te s t i f i edth a tth er e wa s , i n f act , s o me di s c r e p a n c y a s t o e x a c t l y w h e n t h e d r e a d l o c k s w e r e r e m o v e d , a n dMi ll e r’ s lawy ers did not want the State to be a ble t o argue tha t Mille r c ut off his dr eadlo cks rig ht after t he cri m e in an attempt to “ch ang e h is id ent ity.” The tr ial court c redite d the te stim ony of the lawy ers, and in light of that te sti mony, we
c a nnot sayth a t the ir c onc e rns a

bout e vi de nc e th a t M il le r c utof f h is dr e a dl oc ks
a ro u n d t h e t i m e o f t h e s h o o t i n g w e r e u n r e a s o n a b l e . T h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l d id not
c a ll th e m ot he r and the re byopen th e d oor to argu m e nta

bout Mi ll e r h a vi ng
so ug ht to chang e h is app earance d oes no t am ou nt to in effecti ve ass is tan ce. See C a re yv. St a te , 281 G a . A pp. 816 , 818 -81 9 ( 2) (63 7 SE 2d 7 57) (2 006)
. (b) Mi ll e r a ls o argu e s tha t h is tr ia l l a w y e r was ine ff e c ti ve be c ause she fail ed to ob

ject to th e admiss io n of tr ip le hears ay or m ov e fo r a m is tr ial w hen8

Detectiv e Dann y Agan test if iedth at Off

icer Ho us to n t ol d Ag an at th e scene th at
a loca l r e s i de nt s a i d he ha d he a r d t ha t “L i t t l e E ” di d i t
. A s s um i ng t hat this evide nce wa s inadm issible under form er OC GA § 24-3 -2, Mil le r has not shown how he w a s pr e

ju di c e d. See Wh it a ke r v . St a te , 269 G a . 462 , 465 (4 ) ( b) (49 9 SE 2d 8 88) (1 998)
. T he e vi de nc e of wh ic h Mil le r c om pl a in s w a s c um

ul a ti ve of th e eyewitn ess test imon y, i ncl ud in g th e eyewitn ess id ent if icatio n o f “ Litt le E”
a s the sho ot e r, a s w e ll a s M il le r’ s c onf e ss io n t o hi s gi rlfr ien d a nd the id ent if icatio n o f Mi lleras “Li ttl e E” by o th er wit nes ses . See Div is io n 2 , su pr a. A c c ord in gl y , th e e vi de nc e sup ports th e tr ia l c ourt’ s c onc lu si on tha t the re is no
re a son a bl e pr oba bi li ty th a t the fa il ure of

Mi ll e r’ s l a w y e r t o ob

je c t t o D e te c ti ve Ag an’ s tes timon y affected t he o ut come of th e tr ial. See Maur er v. State, 3 20 Ga. Ap p. 5 85 , 59 2 ( 6) (b ) ( 74 0 S E2d 31 8) (2 01 3)
. See also Mo rr is v. S tate, 28 4 Ga. 1, 4 ( 3) (66 2 SE 2d 1 10) (2 008)
. Jud gm e nta ff

irm e d. A ll th e Jus ti c e s c onc ur.