FOURTH D I VI SI ON

ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, BRA N CH and M ERCI 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.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 15, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A2 01 9 . SHAW

v . THE STATE.

B R A N C H , J u d g e.

Fo l l owi n g a tri a l b y ju ry

, Ken n et h J u s ten Sh aw w as co nv i ct ed o f ag g rav at ed

b at t ery an d ag g rav at ed as s au lt b u t acq ui t ted o f ob s tru ct i on o f an o ffi cer, ch arg es t h at

aro s e o u t o f a fi g h t at a W affl e Ho u s e in Fo rs y t h ; h e was s en t en ced t o 1 0 y ears in

p ri s o n fo ll o wed b y 1 0 y ears o f p ro b at io n

. On ap p eal fro m t h e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r

n ew tri al

, Sh aw co n t en d s t h at t h e ev i d en ce was i n su ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt t h e co n v i ct i o n

o f ag g rav at ed b at tery

. He fu rt h er co n ten d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n in s t ru ct i n g t h e

ju ry an d in ex cl u d i n g t h e t es t im o n y o f an ex p ert wi t n es s

. Fi nal l y

, h e co n t en d s t h at h e

recei v ed i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f c o u n s el i n s ev eral reg ard s

. Fo r t h e reas o n s t h at

fo l l o w , we rev ers e t h e d en i al o f Sh aw’ s m o t i on fo r n ew t ri al

.W h en t h e ap p el l at e co u rt s rev i ew t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce, t h ey d o n ot

“ re-wei g h t h e ev i den ce” o r res o l v e co n fl i ct s i n t h e t es t i m o n y ; i n s t ead t h ey d efer “ to

t h e ju ry ’ s as s es s m en t o f th e w ei g h t an d cred i b il i t y o f th e ev id en ce.” Gr ees o n v. S t a t e

,

2 8 7 Ga. 7 6 4

, 7 6 5 (7 0 0 SE2 d 34 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ). See al s o Gl a z e v. S t a t e

, 3 1 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 7 9,

6 8 1 (1 ) (7 3 2 SE2 d 7 7 1 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Ap p el lat e co urt s d et erm i n e wh et h er “ aft er v i ewi n g

t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i gh t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t he p ro s ecu t io n , an y rat i o n al t ri er o f fact

co u ld h av e fo u n d t he es s en t ial el em en ts o f t h e cri m e b e yo n d a r eas o n ab l e d o u b t .”

Ja cks o n v. Vi r

g i n i a

, 44 3 U. S. 3 0 7

, 3 1 9 (III) (B) (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1, 61 LE2 d 5 60 ) (1 9 7 9 )

(ci t at i o n s an d em

p h as i s o m i t ted ). 1

C o n s t r u ed i n fav o r o f t h e v erd i ct

, t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at tri al s h o ws t h a t

earl y o n M arch 2 2

, 20 1 4

, t h e 2 0 -y ear-o l d v i ct im an d h i s g i rl fri en d wen t t o t h e W affl e

Ho u s e an d s at i n a bo o t h n ear t h e res t ro o m

, wi th th e v i ct i m t ak i n g t he i ns i d e s eat

.

Sh aw en t ered t h e res t au ran t at ab o u t t h e s am e t im e, al o n g wi t h h i s wi fe an d s is t er, an d

t h e t hree ev en t u al ly wen t t o t h e res t ro o m t o g et h er. T h e vi ct i m an d h i s g i rl fri en d h eard

1 Ap pel l an t ’ s ci t at i o n s to t h e reco rd are n o t in pro p er fo rm

. W e rem in d t h e b ar

t h at t he Ru les o f t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s req u i re t h at reco rd an d t ran s cri p t ci tat i o n s m u s t

b e t o t h e v ol u m e or p art of t h e reco rd o r t ran s cri p t an d th e p ag e nu m b ers t h at ap p ear

o n t h e ap p el l at e reco rd s o r t ran s cri p t as s en t fro m t h e co u rt b el o w. S e e R u l e 2 5.

Acco rd in g ly

, p art i es s h o ul d n o t ci t e t o t h e p a g e n u m b er o f a d o cu m en t

, s u ch as a

d ep os i t i o n o r affi d av i t , i n cl u d ed i n t he reco rd b u t rat her to t h e reco rd p ag e n u m b er.

2y el li n g co m i n g f r o m t h e res t ro o m

, an d wh en Sh aw an d t h e t wo wo m en ex i t ed t h e

res t ro o m

, Sh aw as ked t h e v i ct i m

, “ Di d y ’ al l h ear u s f_

__ _ _ _ s c r e a m i n g i n t h e

b at h ro o m ? ” At t h i s p o in t

, t h e v i c t i m co n cl u ded t h at “ i t was a b ad s i t u at io n .” Sh aw

t h en s t art ed y el l i n g an d pu s h i ng h i s s i s t er an d i n d i cat i n g t h at h e was t ry i n g t o as k t h e

v i ct i m an d h i s g irl fri en d a q u es t i o n . Th e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed

,

An d t h en h e k ep t g et t i ng cl o s er an d, l i k e, s t an d i n g o v er us

, y el l i n g at us

,

an d cu s si n g at u s, l ik e i n a t h reat en i n g m an n er.

. . . He was l i k e, co u l d

y o u hear m e f_

_ _ _ __ s cream i n g i n th e b at h ro o m ? I’ m n o t g o i n g t o as k

y o u ag ai n , an d s ay i n g s t u ff l i k e t h at

. An d t h en t hat ’ s wh en I p u l l ed th e

k n i fe ou t o f m

y p o ck et an d l ai d i t o n m y lap

. 2 An d t h en I b e l i e v e t h e

s i st er s aw t h e k n i fe w h en I h ad i t i n m y l ap

, an d s h e s tart ed y el l i ng

, y o u

d o n ’ t k n ow wh at he’ s been t h ro u g h, y o u d o n ’ t k n o w wh at t he f_

_ _ he’ s

b een t h ro u g h fo r t h i s co u n try an d fo r y o u . . . . Th en h e en d ed u p

— he

s at d o wn in fro n t o f u s

. [M y g i rl fri en d] g rab b ed t h e k n i fe an d cl o s ed i t

.

An d t h at ’ s w h en h e was s m i l i n g an d l au g hi n g

, s ay i n g

, d o y o u real i ze

h o w m an y peo p l e I’ v e k i l l ed wi t h t h es e h an ds

, an d wh at I can d o t o y o u

wi t h t hes e h an d s ri g h t n o w?

A wai t res s arri v ed i n t he m i dd le o f t h i s co n v ers at io n an d rep eat e d l y r e q ues t ed t h at

Sh aw l eav e t h e res t a u ran t

, b u t Sh aw rem ai n ed fo r ov er a m i n u te. T h e v i ct i m

co n ti n u ed

,

2 Th e v i ct i m ’ s g irl fri en d t es ti fi ed t h at t h e b l ad e was o p en

.

3An d t h en t h at ’ s w h en h e s t a r t e d s ay i n g

, l ik e y el l i n g aro u n d t h e ro o m

,

s ay i n g

, h e’ s di s res p ect in g a f_

_ _ _ _ _ vet eran

. . . . An d t h en t h at ’ s wh en

I s ai d

, y o u ’ re n o t a v et eran

, b ecau s e v et eran s do n ’ t co m e b ack an d treat

ci v i l i an s l i k e t h is

.

At t hi s p o i nt

, Sh aw “ cam e o ver t h e t ab l e,” g rab b ed t h e v i ct i m

, p i ck ed h i m u p

, a n d

b eg an t o h i t h i m i n t h e h ead

. Th e wai t er cal l ed t h e p o l i ce. Sh aw w res t l ed t h e v i ct i m

t o t h e g ro u n d an d b i t hi m o n t he face; th e vi ct i m

t es t i fi ed t h at Sh aw was “ g rab b i n g

m y head an d p ul l i n g w it h hi s t eet h

, t ry i n g to pu l l t h e s k i n o ff o f m y face.” T he b i t i n g

cau s ed a wo u n d t h at t o o k fo u r m o n t h s t o “ cl o s e u p ” an d left a s car th at was v i s i b l e

at tri al

. Sh aw al s o “ s t u ck h i s t h u m b d o w n i n t h e co rn er o f [t h e vi ct im ’ s] ey e an d t ri ed

t o p o p [t h e vi ct i m ’ s] ey e o u t .” Sh aw r e p e a t ed l y p un ch ed t h e v ict i m

, cau s i n g t h e

v i ct i m ’ s h ead t o h i t a g a i n s t t h e fl oo r, w h i ch i n t u rn

, cau s ed t h e v i ct i m t o l o s e

co n sci o u s n es s s ev eral t im es

. W h en t h e v i ct im at t em pt ed t o m o v e o r g et u p

, Sh aw

wo u l d hi t h i m ag ai n to t h e s am e effect

. Th e v i ct i m s u ffered a co n cu s s i o n as a res u l t

.

Du ri n g t h e i n ci d en t

, t h e v i ct i m t h o u g h t t h at Sh aw was g o in g t o b eat h i m t o d e a t h

. 3

Th e St at e’ s wi t n es s es t es t i fi ed t h at Sh aw ap p eared to be d ru n k

, an g ry

, an d ag g res s i v e

fro m t h e b eg i n ni n g o f t h e en co u n t er.

3 Vi d eo t ap e ev i d en ce o f t h e i nci d en t was i n tro d u ced

, b u t i t i s fro m a d i s t an ce

an d t ak en fro m

b eh in d t he v i ct i m

.

4Sh aw t es t ifi ed i n hi s o wn d efen s e t h at h e was 2 5 y ears o l d ; h ad s erv ed i n t h e

Un i ted St at es Arm

y s i n ce h e was 1 9 , i n cl u d i n g at t h e t i m e o f t h e i nci d en t ; an d was

,

at th e t i m e o f t ri al

, em

p l o y ed b y a s u b co n t ract or t o Geo rg i a Po wer. He t es t ifi ed t h at

h e recei v ed a m ed i cal d is ch arg e fro m t h e arm y b ecau se h e h as To u ret te’ s s y n d ro m e,

o b s es s i v e-co m

p u ls i v e d i s o rd er (OC D )

, a t i c o r t w i t ch d i s o rd er, an d po s t t rau m at i c

s t res s d i s o rd er (PTSD). Sh aw tes t ifi ed th at o n t h e n ig h t b efo re t h e i n ci d en t

, h e, h i s

wi fe, an d h i s s i s t er at t e n d e d a s o c i a l ev en t fro m 6 : 30 p .m

. t o 2 : 3 0 a.m

., an d t h at h e

h a d s e v e r a l dri nk s o v er t h e co u rs e of t h e n i g h t

. So m et i m e aft er l eav i n g t h e ev en t

,

Sh aw an d t h e t w o wo m en t h en wen t t o t h e W affl e Ho u se. Sh aw t es t i fi ed t h at aft er

co m i n g o u t o f th e b at h ro om

, h e was i n t ro d u ced t o t h e vi ct i m an d h i s gi rl fri en d an d

t h at h e w as cal m l y t al k in g t o t h e co u p l e, ap ol o g i zi n g fo r y el l in g i n t h e bat h ro o m

, an d

ex p lai n i n g t h at h e y el l ed b ecau s e o f h i s To u ret t e’ s s y n d ro m e. He t es t ifi ed t h at h e p ut

o u t h i s h a n d t o in t ro d u ce h i m s el f t o t h e v i ct i m b ut t h at t h e v i ct i m wo ul d n o t s h ak e

h an ds . Sh aw t es ti fi ed t h at as h e was s i t ti n g d o wn h e s aw t he v i ct i m p u ll o ut a k n i fe

an d th at t h e v i ct i m b ro u gh t t h e k n i fe t o wi t h i n a fo o t of Sh aw’ s n eck

. Sh aw t es t i fi ed

t h at h e t ho u g ht t he v i ct i m i n t en d ed t o k i l l h i m o r cu t h i m

, “ o r s o m et h i ng ” an d t h at h e

feared fo r hi s l i fe. He t es t i fi ed t h at as t h e t en s i o n es cal at ed

, t h e wai t res s co m e o v er

an d t o l d h i m t o g o t o h i s o wn b o o t h an d t o l d t h e v ict i m t o p u t t h e k n i fe away

. Sh aw

5t es t i fi ed t h at he fu rt h er at t em p t ed t o cal m t h e v ict i m do wn b u t t h at wh en t h e v i ct i m ’ s

g i rl fri en d s t o o d u p

, h e becam e wo rri ed t h at t h e v i ct i m wo u l d at t ack Sh aw’ s wi fe an d

s i st er. A cco rd i n g l y

, Sh aw t es t i fi ed

, h e t h en hi t th e v ict i m wi t h t h e i n s id e o f h i s h an d

an d h i s b racel et ap paren t l y cu t t h e v ict i m ’ s ch eek

. Sh a w t es ti fi ed t h at h e an d t h e

v i ct i m cam e o u t o f t h e b oo t h an d en d ed u p o n t h e fl o o r wh ere Sh aw was ab le to

d i s arm t h e v i ct i m o f t h e kn i fe. Sh aw t es t i fi ed t h at h e h ad a p an ic at t ack a f t e r t h e

p o l i ce arri v ed

, wh i ch w as co rro b o rat ed b y St at e wi t n es s es . Sh aw’ s wi fe t es t i fi ed in

s u p p ort t h at s h e saw t h e vi ct i m h o l d i n g t h e k n i fe ab o v e t h e t ab le o n e t o t wo feet away

fro m Sh aw. Sh e al s o co rro b o rat ed o t h er as pect s o f Sh aw’ s t es t i m o n y

. Sh aw’ s s i s t er

d i d t h e s am e.

At t h e co n cl u s i o n o f th e ev i d en ce, t h e co u rt ch arg ed t he ju ry o n

, am on g o t h er

t h i n g s

, t h e cri m es of ag g rav at ed as s au lt an d th e l es s er-i n cl ud ed o ffen s e o f s i m p l e

as s au l t

, as wel l as ag grav at ed b at t ery an d th e l es s er-i n cl u ded o ffen s e o f b at tery

. Bu t

i n ch a r g i n g b at t ery

, t h e co u rt o m i t t ed t h e wo rd “ s u b s t an t i al ” fro m t h e p art o f t h e

d efi n i t i o n o f bat t ery t h at req u i res a s h o wi n g o f “ s u bs t an t i al ” p h y si cal harm

. Th e ju ry

l at er as k ed t h e co u rt t o ex p lai n t h e d i fferen ce b et ween ag g rav at ed b at t ery an d “ s i m p l e

b a t t e r y ,” t h e lat ter o f wh i ch h ad n o t b een ch arg ed

, an d t h e part i es an d t h e co u rt

ag reed t h at a “ rech arg e” was ap p ro p ri at e. Th e co u rt t h en rep eat ed t h e ag g rav at ed

6b at t ery ch arg e b u t d i d no t rep eat an i n st ru ct i o n o n b at t ery ; in s t ead i t ch arg ed t h e ju ry

o n s i m pl e b at t ery

, an d i t r e a d t hat ch arg e to t h e ju ry t h ree t i m es

. Nei t h er p art y

o b ject ed t o t h e co u rt ’ s act i o n

. Th e ju ry fo u nd Sh aw g u i l t y o f t h e g reat er ch arg es o f

ag g rav at ed as s au l t an d ag g rav at ed b at t ery

.

1

. Sh a w co nt en d s t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t t o s up p ort t h e co n v i ct i o n o f

ag g rav at ed b at t ery

, b as ed s o l e l y o n t h e arg um en t t h at t h e v i ct i m d i d n o t s u s t ai n a

“ s eri o u sl y

d i s fi g u ri ng i n

ju ry .” 4 W e d i sag ree.

Sh aw was i n di ct ed fo r ag g rav at ed b at t ery i n t h at h e “ d id m al ici o u sl y cau s e

b o d i l y harm t o [t h e v ict i m ] by seri o us l y di s fi g u ri n g a m em ber o f hi s bo d y

, b y b i t i n g

i n t o [t h e v i ct i m ’ s ] ch eek an d t eari n g o p en t he v i ct i m ’ s fl es h

, cau s i n g s carri n g

. . . .”

“ Al t h o u g h OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 d o es n o t d efi n e t h e t erm ‘ s eri ou s [l y ] di s fi g u ri n g ,’ t h i s

Co u rt h as ru l ed t h at t he cri m e o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery d o es n o t req u ire th at t h e v i ct i m ’ s

d i s f i g u rem en t b e p erm an en t ; h o wev er, t h e i n ju ry m u st b e m o re sev ere t han a m ere

v i s i b l e o r s u p erfi ci al wo u n d .” Levi n v. S ta t e

, 3 3 4 G a. A p p

. 71

, 7 4 (1 ) (7 7 8 SE2 d 2 3 8 )

(2 0 1 5) (ci t at i o n

, p u n c t u at i o n

, an d em p h as is om i t t ed ). Th e q u es t i o n o f wh et h er t h e

4 “ A p ers o n c o m m i t s t h e o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed b at tery wh en h e o r s h e

m al i ci ou s l y cau s es b od i l y h arm t o an o th er b y d ep ri v i n g h i m o r h er o f a m em b er o f h i s

o r her b od y

, b y ren d eri n g a m em b er o f h i s o r h e r b o d y us el es s

, o r by s eri o u s l y

d i s fi g u ri n g h i s o r h er b o d y o r a m em

b er t h ereo f.” OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a).

7d efen d an t ’s a c t i o n s cau s ed “ s eri o us d i s fi g u rem en t ” i s fo r t h e ju ry

. Un d er wo o d v.

S t a t e

, 2 8 3 Ga. A p p. 6 3 8

, 6 4 1 (3 ) (6 4 2 SE2 d 3 2 4 ) (2 0 07 ). Here, t h e St at e s h o wed t h at

t h e v i ct im su ffered a co n cu s s io n an d s u s t ai n ed a wo u n d o n hi s face t h at t o o k m o n t h s

t o c l o s e up an d th at left a d i m e-s i zed s car. Acco rd i ng l y

, t h e ju ry w as au t h ori ze d t o

co n cl u d e t h at t h e v i ct i m s u ffered m ore t h an ju s t a s u p erfi ci al wo u n d

. See, e.g

.,

Ja cks o n v. S t a te

, 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 8

, 5 91 (1 ) (7 3 0 SE2 d 6 9 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (“ W h et h er t h e

s cars ro s e t o t h e lev el o f s eri o u s d i s fi g urem en t was a fact u al i s s ue fo r t h e ju ry to

res o l ve.”) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ); Levi n

, 3 3 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 4 (1 ) (ju ry au t h ori zed t o fi n d

s eri ou s d i s fi g u rem en t wh ere b eat i n g v i ct i m h ad a “ b ru i s ed an d s wo l l en face, wi t h o n e

ey e s w o ll en s h u t, an d a ‘ g o o s e eg g ’ o n h er face[,] ” t o g et h er wi t h b ru i s ed an d s wo l l en

h an ds an d cu t feet ). Co m

p are W i l l i a ms v. S ta t e

, 2 4 8 Ga. A p p

. 3 1 6

, 31 7 -3 1 9 (1 ) (5 4 6

SE2 d 74 ) (2 0 0 1) (ev i d en ce in s u ffi ci en t t o s u pp o rt ag g rav at ed b at t ery co n v i ct i o n

w h e r e v i ct i m s u s t ai n ed m i n o r s crat ch es an d b ru i s es an d t h ere was no ev i d en ce o f

b l eed i n g wo un d s o r s wel l i n g ).

Th e ev i d en ce was al so s u ffi ci en t t o co n v i ct Sh aw o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t as

al l eg ed i n t h e i n d ict m en t

— b y u s i n g hi s fi s t s t o b eat t h e v ict i m i n t h e h ead an d face,

“ s ai d act p l aci ng s ai d v i ct i m i n reas on ab l e ap p reh en s i o n o f i m m ed i at el y recei v i n g a

v i o l en t i n ju ry an d cau s i n g b ru i s i n g

, swel l i n g

, an d d izzi n es s .” See OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 1

8(b ) (2 ) (“ A p ers o n co m m i t s t h e o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t w h en h e or sh e as s au l t s

. . . w i t h an y o b

ject

, d ev i ce, o r i n s t ru m en t wh i ch

, wh en u s e d o f f en si v el y ag ai n s t a

p ers o n

, i s l i k el y t o o r act u al l y d o es res u lt i n s eri o u s bo d i l y i n ju ry ”); S ims v. St a t e

, 2 9 6

Ga. A p p

. 4 6 1

, 46 2 (1 ) (6 7 5 SE2 d 2 41 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (ev i d en ce th at d efen d an t s t ru ck v i ct i m

wi t h h i s fi s t s was s uffi ci en t t o su s t ai n h i s co n v ict i o n fo r ag g rav at ed as sau l t b ecau s e

fi st s are o b

ject s wh i ch

, “ wh en u s ed o ffen s i v el y ag ai n s t an o t h er p ers o n

, are l i k el y to

res u l t i n s eri o u s b o d il y

i n j u ry ”).

2

. Sh aw co nt en d s t he t ri al co u rt erred in fo u r wa ys w i t h r e g ard t o ju ry

i n s t ru ct i o n s o n th e vari ou s fo rm s o f b at t ery

. Tri al co un s el d i d n o t o bject t o an y o f t h e

i n s t an ces

, an d w e t h erefo re wi l l rev i ew t h e ch arg es o nl y fo r “ p lai n erro r wh i ch affect s

s u b s t an t i al ri g ht s o f t h e part i es .” OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 8 (b ). 5 Ou r Su p rem e Co u rt h as

i n t erp ret ed t h i s req ui rem en t as es t ab l i s h i n g a fo u r-p ro n g t es t:

[T] h e p ro p er i nq u i ry i s wh et h er th e i n st ru ct io n was erro n eo u s

, wh et h er

i t was o b vi o u s l y s o

, an d wh et h er i t l i k el y affect ed th e o u t c o m e o f th e

p ro ceed i n g s

. If al l t h ree o f t h es e q u es t i o ns are a n s wered i n th e

affi rm at iv e, t h e ap p el l at e co u rt has th e d i s cret i o n t o rev ers e i f t h e erro r

5 Th e t ri al co urt h el d

, i n p art

, t h at al t h o u g h Sh aw fai l ed t o ob ject t o t h e v ari ou s

b at t ery ch arg es , “ th e ch arg e w as n o t “ s o erro n eo u s t o ri s e to t h e l ev el o f s u b s t an t i al

o r h arm fu l erro r as co n t em p l at ed b y OCGA § 5 -5 -2 4 .” Al t h o u g h t h a t Co d e s ect i o n

i s ap p l i cab le t o ci v i l cas es

, t h e t wo s t at u t es are “ co n s o n an t ” wi t h each o t h er. S t a te v.

Kel l y , 2 9 0 Ga. 2 9, 3 2 (1 ) (7 1 8 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

9s eri o u s l y affect s t he fai rn es s

, i n t eg ri t y o r p u b l i c rep u t at i o n o f th e

p ro ceed i n g s b el o w.

S t a t e v. Kel l

y

, 2 9 0 Ga. 2 9

, 3 3 (2 ) (a) (7 18 S E2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 0 1 1) (ci t at i o n s an d

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

Th e t ri al co u rt i n i t ial l y ch arg ed th e j u ry o n t h e s eco n d an d t h i rd f o r m s o f

b at t ery

— t h at i s

, bat t ery an d ag g rav at ed b at t ery ; th e co u rt d i d n o t i n i t ial l y ch arg e o n

s i m p l e b at t ery

, t h e l eas t v i o l en t fo rm o f t h e cri m e. 6 In i t s b at t ery ch arg e, t h e t ri al co u rt

s t at ed t hat “ a p ers o n co m m i t s t h e o f

f en s e o f b at t ery wh en h e i n ten t io n al ly cau s es

p h y s i cal h arm o r v i s i b l e b o d i l y h arm t o an o t h er,” t h u s l eav in g o u t t h at t h e p h y s i cal

h a r m r eq u i red b y t h e s t at u te i s “ s u b s tan t i al ” p hy s i cal h arm

. Th e co u rt al s o d i d n o t

g i v e t h e d efi n i t i o n o f “ v i s i b l e b o d i ly h arm ,” wh i ch i s p ro v i d ed i n th e s tat u t e. OCGA

§ 1 6-5 -2 3 .1 (b ) (“ t h e t erm ‘ v i si b l e b o di l y h arm ’ m ean s b o di l y h arm cap ab l e o f b ei n g

p ercei v ed by a p ers o n o t h er th an t h e v i ct i m an d m ay i n cl ud e, b u t is no t li m i t ed t o,

s u b s t an t i al l y b lack en ed ey es

, s ub s t an t i al l y s wo l l en l i p s o r o t h er faci al o r b o d y p art s

,

6 Si m p l e b at t ery i s a m i s d em ean o r, on e f o r m o f wh i ch req ui res a s ho wi n g o f

“ p h y s i cal h arm t o an ot h er.” OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 (a) (2 ). B at t ery i s a m ore ag g rav at ed

o ffen s e b ecau se i t req u i res pro o f o f “ s u b s t an t i al p h y si cal h arm o r vi s i b l e b o d i l y

h arm .” OCGA § 1 6-5 -2 3 .1 (a). Ag g rav at ed b at t ery i s a fel o n y t h at req ui res ad d i t i o n al

p ro o f of (i ) m al i ce, an d (i i ) b o d i l y h arm wh i ch seri o u s l y d i s fi g ures o r r e n d e r s a

m em b er o f t he v i ct im ’ s b od y u s el es s

. OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a); s ee al so Ch ri st en s en v.

S t a t e , 2 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 6 5 , 1 6 6 (1 ) (a) (5 3 7 SE2 d 4 4 6 ) (2 0 0 0 ).

10o r s u b s tan t ial b ru i s es t o b o d y part s ”). W h en ch arg i n g o n ag grav at ed b at t ery

, al t h o u g h

Sh aw was o n l y i n d i ct ed on o n e fo rm of ag g rav at ed b at t ery fo r “ s eri o u s l y di s fi g u ri n g ”

t h e v i ct i m b y bi ti n g hi m

, t h e c o u r t c h arg ed on t wo fo rm s o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

, by

ch arg i n g t h at t he Sh aw wo u l d h av e co m m i tt ed ag g rav at ed bat t ery i f h e (1 ) d ep ri v ed

t h e v i ct i m o f a m em

b er o f h i s b o d y b y ren d eri n g i t u s el es s

, o r (2 ) s eri o u sl y d i s fi g u red

t h e v i ct i m ’ s b od y o r a m em ber t h ereo f. See OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a). Th en

, i n res p o n s e

t o a ju ry q u es ti o n as k in g t h e co u rt t o cl ari fy t h e di fferen ce b et ween ag grav at ed b at t ery

an d “ s i m p l e b at t ery ,” 7 t h e co u rt rep eat ed t h e ag g rav at ed b at t ery ch arg e, b u t i n s t ead

o f rep eat i n g t h e b at t ery i n s t ru ct i o n

, t h e co u rt m i s t ak en l y ch arg ed t he ju ry o n s i m p l e

b at t ery , rep eat i n g i t t hree t i m es

. 8

7 Th e ju ry h ad no t b een ch arg ed o n s i m p l e b at t ery at th i s p o i nt an d ap p aren t l y

m ean t to as k t h e d ifferen ce b et ween b at tery an d ag g rav at ed b at t ery

, th e ch arg es i t h ad

al read y b een g iv en

.

8 Th e co u rt ch arg ed OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 as fo l lo ws :

A pers o n co m

m i t s th e o ffen s e o f s i m

p le b at t ery

wh en h e o r s h e ei t h er:

On e, i n t en t io n al l y m ak es p h y s i cal co n t act o f an i ns u l ti n g o r p ro v o k i n g

n at u re wi t h t h e p ers o n o f an o t h er

. Or, t w o

, i n t en ti o nal l y cau s es p hy s i cal

h arm t o an o t h er.

11S haw as s ert s p l ai n erro r b as ed o n fo u r ch arg i ng erro rs : (1 ) t h e tri al c o u r t ’s

fai l u re to i ns t ru ct t he j u ry t h at t h e p h y si cal harm req u i red t o p ro ve b at t ery m u s t b e

“ s u b s t an t i al ”; (2 ) t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n s t ru ct i o n o n s i m p l e b at t ery

wh en t h e ju ry

as k ed

fo r cl ari fi cat i o n

, as wel l as t h e co u rt ’ s fai l u re t o rech arg e o n bat t ery wi t h th e co rrect

wo rd i n g ; (3 ) t he co u rt ’ s fai l u re t o read t h e d efi n i t io n o f “ v is ib l e b o d i l y h a r m ” a s a

p art o f t h e ch arg e o n b at tery ; an d (4 ) t he co u rt ’ s fai l u re t o ch arg e o n ly o n t h e fo rm o f

ag g rav at ed b at t ery u s ed i n t he i n d i ct m en t

. Fo r t h e reas o n s s ho wn b el o w, we co n cl u d e

t h at t h e co u rt co m

m i t ted p l ai n erro r as d es cr i b e d i n ch arg i n g erro rs No s

. 1 an d 2

ab o ve, at a m i n im

u m

.

Th e St at e co n ced es

, an d we ag ree, t h at t he co u rt cl earl y an d o b v io u s ly erred as

s h o wn i n ch arg i n g erro rs N o s. 1 an d 2 ; we al s o fi n d th at t h e erro r l i k el y affect ed t h e

o u t co m e o f t h e t ri al an d t h at i t s eri o u s l y affect ed t h e fai rn es s o f t he p ro ceed i n g s

.

Th e fai l u re t o ch arg e t h at t h e p hy s i cal harm req ui red t o p ro v e b at tery m u s t b e

“ s u b s t an t i al ” o m i t t ed an es s en t i al el em en t o f t h e cri m e o f b at t ery

. OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 .1 ;

Ch r i st en s en

, 2 45 G a. Ap p

. at 1 6 6 (1 ) (a). A n d “ t h e f a i l u r e t o i n fo rm th e ju ry o f an

es s en t i al el em en t o f t h e cri m e ch arg ed i s rev ers i bl e erro r b ecau s e t he ju ry i s l eft

wi t h o u t ap p ro p ri at e g u i d el i n es fo r reach i n g i t s v erd i ct .” Ch as e v. S ta t e

, 2 77 Ga. 6 3 6,

6 4 0 (2 ) (5 9 2 SE2 d 6 56 ) (2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t at i on s o m i t t ed ). Th e co u rt ag ai n erred i n t h e

12rech arg e b y fai l i n g t o reco g n i ze t h at t h e ju ry was co n fu s ed ab o ut th e v ari o us fo rm s

o f b at t ery , b y

fai l i n g t o co rrect t h e o ri g i n al erro r in t h e d efi n i t i o n o f b at t ery , an d b y

ch arg i n g o n si m

pl e b at tery

, wh i ch was n o t an i s s u e i n t h e cas e. W h en a ju ry req u es t s

cl ari fi cat i o n o f t he co u rt ’ s ch arg e, t h e co u rt h as a d u ty t o p ro v i d e co rrect ch arg es :

W h en t h e ju ry req u es t s t h e co u rt t o rech ar g e

. . . on an y p o in t

, i t i s th e

co u rt ’ s d u t y t o do s o

. Su ch fu rt h er i n s t ru ct i o n m u s t b e i n p l a i n

, cl ear

l an g uag e cal cu l at ed t o en l i g h t en rat h er t h an co n fu s e t h e ju ry

.

Qu i ro z v. S t a t e

, 2 9 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 2 3

, 4 2 6 (3 ) (6 6 2 SE2 d 2 3 5) (2 0 0 8 ) (p u nct u at i o n an d

fo o t n o t e o m it t ed ). Here, i n res p o n s e t o a req u es t fo r cl ari fi cat i o n

, t h e co u rt co n fu s ed

t h e j u ry b y ch arg i n g o n a cri m e

— s i m p l e b at t ery

— t hat w as n o t part o f th e ca s e

,

rep eat i ng t h e d efi n it i on o f th at cri m e t h ree t i m es

, an d fai l i n g t o c o rrect t h e o ri g i n al

erro neo u s ch arg e o n b at tery

.

Th es e erro rs li k el y affect ed t h e o ut co m e o f t h e t ri al b ecau s e i t g av e t h e ju ry t h e

fal s e ch o i ce o f d eci d in g w h et h er Sh aw co m m i t t ed s im

p l e b at t ery

, wh i ch req u i res t h e

l eas t s e v e r e s h o wi n g of h arm o f t h e t h ree fo rm s o f b at t ery

, o r ag grav at ed b at t ery

,

wh i ch req u i res a sh o wi n g t hat t h e p ers on cau s ed b o d il y h arm t o t h e v i ct i m by

“ s eri o u sl y d i s fi gu ri n g h i s o r h er b od y o r a m e m b er t h ereo f.” See OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4

(a); see al s o W

i l l i ams v. S t a t e

, 2 4 8 Ga. A p p

. 3 1 6, 3 18 (1 ) (5 4 6 SE2 d 7 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (t h e

13s t at u tes creat e t h ree fo rm s o f bat t ery w h i ch “ cat eg o ri ze t h e t y p es o f b at tery b y t h e

s ev eri t y o f t h e h arm in fl i ct ed an d t o p ro v id e h ars h er pen al t i es fo r b at t eri es t h at res u l t

i n m o re s ev ere b o d i l y h ar m ” )

. T h e ju ry was o bv i o u s l y co n fu s ed ab o u t t h e v ari ou s

fo rm s o f b at t ery an d was dep ri v ed o f t h e o p t io n o f co n vi ct i n g Sh aw o f b at t ery

, b o th

b ecau s e th e o ri g i nal b at t ery ch arg e was fl awed an d b ecau s e t h e rech arg e p u t t h e

j u ry ’ s fo cu s o n s i m

pl e b at t ery

. Acco rd in g l y

, th e j u ry n ev er was i n s tru ct ed p r o p e r l y

t h at it h ad t h e o p t i on o f fi nd i n g Sh aw g u i l t y o f bat t ery b y “ i n t en t i o n al l y cau s i n g

s u b s t an t i al p hy s i cal h arm o r vi s i bl e bo d i l y h arm ” t o t h e v i c t i m

, w h i ch can b e a

m i s d em ean o r an d wh i ch at m os t carri es a p en al ty of fi v e y ears i m pri s o n m en t

. OCGA

§ 1 6

- 5

- 2 3 .1

. “ W h en a g i v en in s t ru ct i o n fai l s t o p ro v i d e t h e ju ry w i t h t h e p r o p e r

g u i d el i n es fo r det erm i n i n g g u i lt o r i n n o cen ce, i t is cl earl y h arm fu l an d erro n eo u s as

a m at t er o f l aw.” Ch a s e

, 2 7 7 Ga. at 6 3 9 (2 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Th es e

erro rs s eri o u s l y affect ed t he fai rn es s o f t he p ro ceed i n g s fo r t hes e s am e reas o n s

.

Ch r i s t en s en

, 2 45 G a. Ap p

. 1 65

, u po n w h i ch t h e St at e rel i es

, i s di s t i n g u i s h ab l e.

In t h at cas e, t h e co u rt ch arg ed th e ju ry on t he vi s i b l e-i n ju ry fo rm o f b at t ery (wi t h o ut

ch arg i n g o n “ s u bs t an t i al p h y s i cal h arm ” fo rm ), s ee OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 .1 (a) & (b ), as

wel l as o n ag g rav at ed b at t ery fo r ei t h er s eri o u sl y d i s fi g u ri n g t he vi ct im o r ren d eri n g

a m em b er of hi s b o d y us el es s

, s ee OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (A), fo r wh i ch Ch ri s ten s en was

14co n vi ct ed

. On ap p eal

, Ch ri s ten s en cl ai m ed t hat t h e t r i a l co u rt erred by fai l i n g to

ch arg e t h e ju ry o n s im

p le b at t ery u n d er OCGA § 1 6

- 5 -2 3. Id

. at 1 6 5 (1 ) (a). Th i s

Co u rt h el d t h at b ecau se t h e v i ct i m s u s t ai n ed a s u b s t an t i al ly b l ack en ed ey e, “ t h ere was

n o ev id en ce t o s u p p ort a s i m p l e b at t ery ch arg e u n d er OCGA § 1 6-5 -2 3 becau s e i t

wen t u n di s p u t ed t h at t h e i n j u ry t o t h e v i ct im co n s i s t ed of ‘ v i s i b l e b o di l y h arm .’ ” Id

.

at 16 5 -1 6 6 (1 ) (a). Th e co urt h el d t h at Ch ri s t en s en co u ld s h o w no harm fro m t h e l ack

o f a ch arg e o n s im

p le b at t ery b ecau s e, “ [b ] y i t s v erd ict

, t h e ju ry fo u n d t he ad d i t i o n al

ag g rav at i n g ci rcu m s t an ces n eces s ary t o co n v ict o n t h e g reat er fel o n y o ffen s e,” i

. e.,

ag g rav at ed b at t ery

. Id

. at 1 6 6 (1 ) (a). In o t h er wo rd s, gi v en t h at t he ju ry reject ed t h e

s eco n d fo rm o f b at tery i n f a v o r o f t h e t h ird

, Ch ri s t en s en co u l d s h o w n o h arm b y a

fai l u re t o ch arg e th e j u ry o n t h e l o wes t fo rm o f b at tery . Th e i s s u e faci n g t h e ju ry in

t h e p res en t cas e was n ot t he s am e; i t faced th e ch o i ce o f co n vi ct in g Sh aw o f t h e fi rs t

an d t h i rd fo rm s o f b at t ery

, an d i t was d ep ri v ed of t h e o pp o r t u n i t y t o co n s i d er t h e

s eco n d f o r m o f b at t ery

. Th u s

, ju s t b ecau s e t h e ju ry reject ed s i m p l e b at tery i n t h e

p res en t cas e d o es no t m ean t h at t h e ju ry wo u l d n o t hav e fo u n d th at Sh aw co m m i t t ed

b at t ery

.

In co n cl us i on

, t h e t ri al co u rt p l ai n l y erred wi t h reg ard t o ch arg i n g erro rs No

.

1 an d 2 an d t h erefo re al s o erred b y refu s i n g to g ran t a new t ri al o n Sh aw’ s co n v i ct i o n

15o f ag g rav at ed b at tery

. W e t herefo re n eed n ot co n si d er wh et h er t h e co urt al s o p l ai n l y

erred wi t h reg ard t o ch arg in g erro rs No

. 3 an d 4. W e al so n eed n ot c o n s i d er an y

as s ert i o n s o f i neffect i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f co un s el wi t h reg ard t o an y ch arg i n g erro rs

rel at ed t o t he co n v i ct io n o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

.

3

. Sh aw n ex t co n ten d s t h at h i s t ri al co u n sel was in effect i v e “ b y at t em p t i n g to

p res en t an i n s an i t y o r d el u si o n al co m pu l s io n d efen s e w i t h o ut t ak i ng t h e s t ep s

n eces s ary to g i v e t h e ju ry t h e o p t i o n t o fi n d M r. Sh aw n o t g u i l t y b y reas o n o f

i n s an i t y

. ” See OCGA § 1 6 -3 -3 (“ A p ers o n s h al l n o t b e fo un d g u i l ty o f a cri m e wh en

,

at t h e t i m e o f th e act

, o m i ss io n

, o r n eg li g en ce co n s t it u ti n g t h e cr i m e

, t h e p ers o n,

b ecau s e o f m en t al d i s eas e, i n j u ry , o r co n g en i t al d efi ci en cy

, act ed as h e d i d b ecau s e

o f a d e l u s i o n al co m

p u l s i o n as t o s u ch act wh ich o v erm as t ered h i s wi l l t o res i s t

co m m i t t i n g t he cri m e.”)

To p rev ai l o n t h i s cl ai m

, Sh aw m u s t p ro v e b o t h th at h i s l awy er’ s p erfo rm an ce

was d efi ci en t an d t h at h e s u ffered p reju d ice as a res u l t o f t h i s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce.

S t r i ckl a n d v. W

as h in g t o n

, 4 6 6 U. S. 6 68

, 6 87 (III) (1 04 SCt 2 0 5 2

, 8 0 LEd 2 d 6 7 4 )

(1 9 8 4). I f h e c a n n o t m eet t he b u rd en o f p ro v in g ei t her p ro n g o f t h e S t r ickl a n d t es t

,

t h en we n eed n o t ex am i n e t h e o t h er p ro ng

. Ba t t l es v. S t a t e

, 2 9 0 Ga. 2 2 6

, 2 2 9 (2 ) (7 1 9

SE2 d 4 2 3 ) (2 01 1 ). W i t h res p ect t o t h e f i rs t pro n g

, d efi ci en t perfo rm an ce, t h e

16d efen d an t m u s t s h o w t hat h is at t o rn ey p erfo rm ed h i s d u t i es at t ri al i n an o bject i v el y

u n reas o nab l e way

, co n s i d eri n g al l t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

, an d i n li g h t o f p r e v ai l i n g

p ro fes s i on al n o rm s

. St r i ckl a n d

, 4 6 6 U. S. at 6 8 7 -6 8 8 (III) (A). To d em o n s t rat e t h at

h e s u ffered p reju d i ce, a d efen d an t m u st p ro v e “ a reas o n ab l e 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 io n al erro rs

, th e res ul t o f t h e p ro ceed i ng wo u ld h av e b een

d i fferen t. A reas o n ab le pr oba bi l i t y i s a p ro b ab i l i t y s uffi ci en t t o un d erm i n e co n fi d en ce

i n t h e o u t co m e.” Id

. at 69 4 (III) (B). “ Th i s b u rd en

, t h o u g h n o t im p o s s i b l e t o carry

, i s

a h eav y o n e

. ” Ar n o l d v. S t a t e

, 2 9 2 Ga. 2 6 8

, 2 7 0 (2 ) (7 3 7 SE2 d 9 8) (2 0 1 3 ), ci t i n g

Ki mmel ma n v. Mo r r i s on

, 4 7 7 U. S. 3 6 5, 3 82 (II) (C) (1 0 6 SCt 2 5 7 4, 9 1 LE2 d 3 0 5 )

(1 9 8 6). On ap p eal “ we accep t t h e t ri al co urt ’ s f a c t u a l fi n d i n g s an d cred i b i l i t y

d et erm i n at i o n s u n 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 .” Su g g s v

. S t a t e

, 2 7 2 Ga. 8 5

, 8 8 (4 ) (5 2 6 SE2 d 3 4 7 ) (2 0 0 0 )

(fo o t no t e o m i t t ed ).

Th e reco rd fro m t h e t ri al s h o w s i rreco n ci l ab l e i n co n s i s t en cy i n Sh aw’ s

co u ns e l ’s ap p ro ach to d efen d i n g Sh aw. Sev eral week s b efo re tri al

, Sh aw’ s co u n s el

l i st ed Dr. Th o m as Sach y

, Sh aw’ s p sy ch i at ri s t

, o n a wi t n es s l i s t

. J us t p ri o r to t ri al

, an d

ap p aren tl y i n an ti ci p at io n o f Sh aw’ s s t rat eg y

, th e St at e p ro p o s ed ju ry in s t ru ct i o n s t h at

i n cl u d ed i n s t ru ct i o n s on t h e d efen s e o f i ns an i ty an d m en t al i l l nes s

. A n d o n e d ay

17b efo re t ri al

, Dr. Sach y s p o k e to a p ro s ecu t o r an d ex p lai n ed t h at h e h ad b een t reat i n g

S h a w fo r a y ear l ead i n g up t o t ri al fo r s y m p t o m s, i n cl u d i ng t h at he rep eat ed l y a n d

u n co nt ro l l ab l y p ray ed o u t l ou d d u ri n g b at t le, wh i ch

, t h e pro s ecu t or ad v i s ed t h e co u rt

d u ri n g p ret ri al d i s cu s s i o n s, wo u l d cau s e th e ju ry t o b el iev e th at Sh aw was n o t s an e.

As t ri al p ro ceed i n g s co m m en ced

, t h e St at e p o i n t ed o u t t h at Sh aw h ad n o t fo l l o wed

req u i red p ro ced u res fo r as s ert i n g a d efen s e b as ed o n i ns an i ty or o t h er m en tal i l l n es s

,

i n cl u d i n g g i v i n g p ro p er n o t i c e o f t he p ro p os ed u s e o f an ex p ert wi t n es s an d

p ro d uci n g t h e wi t n es s ’ s o p in i o n ; t h e co urt s u s t ai n ed t he o b ject io n

.

Sh aw’ s co u n s el rep l i ed t h at Sh aw was n o t m ak in g a d efen s e o f t h at t y p e:

A s t o t h e i n s an i t y

, we’ ve t ri ed t o s t ay away fro m t h at as m u ch a s w e

co u l d, b ecau se h e’ s 2 5 y ears o l d a n d h as t h e res t o f h i s li fe i n fro n t o f

h i m

. An d i f h e’ s fo u nd no t g u i l t y b ecau se o f i n s a n i t y, i t ’ s g o i n g t o be

h ard fo r h i m t o m a k e a l i v i n g fo r t h e res t o f hi s li fe. So we’ re n o t

l o o k i n g fo r a n o t g u i l t y

b y reas on o f i n s an i t y

i n t h i s cas e.

Ev en s o

, Sh aw’ s co u ns el i nd i cat ed t h at Dr. Sach y w as a p o s s ib l e wi tn es s

, y et co u n s el

ad m i t t ed t h at h e h ad n o t h i red o r t al k ed t o Sach y fo r m o re t h an fi v e m i n ut es b efo re

t ri al

. Co u n s el st at ed t o t he co u rt

, “ W e d on ’ t k n o w wh et h er t h e d o ct or wi l l q u al i fy as

an ex p ert o r n o t,” an d co u n s el wo u l d d e ci d e wh et h er Sach y wo ul d t es t i fy wh en

c o u n s el was ab l e t o s p eak t o Sach y at no o n o n t he fi rs t d ay o f t ri al

. Du ri n g t h e

18p res en t at i o n o f t h e ev i d en ce, Sh aw’ s co u n s el at t em p ted t o cal l Sach y t o t h e s t an d,

wh ereu po n t h e St at e ob

ject ed o n t h e gro u n d t h at i t h ad n o t recei v ed p ro p er n o t i ce t h at

Sach y wo u l d be tes t ify i ng as an ex p ert

. Th e co u rt ag r e e d a n d b arred Sach y fro m

t es t i fy i ng

, b u t a l lo wed Sh aw’ s co un s el t o m ak e a p ro ffer o f Sach y ’ s t es t i m o n y

.

Sh aw’ s co u n s el t h en as k ed w h et h er Sach y co u l d tes t ify as Sh aw’ s d o ct or, wh i ch t h e

co u rt al s o d en ied o n t h e g ro u n d t h a t S a c h y was no t a fact wi t n es s t o t he cri m e an d

t h at an y t es t i m o n y ab ou t Sh aw wo u l d n eces s ari l y fal l i n t o t h e cat eg o ry o f ex p ert

t es t i m o ny

. In t he p ro ffer, Sach y t es ti fi ed t hat h e had b een t reat i n g Sh aw fo r T ou ret t e’ s

s y n d ro m e, an x i et y

d i s o rd er, OCD, an d PTSD.

W i t h t he ju ry b ack i n co u rt

, S h a w’s co u n s el el ici t ed tes t im on y fro m t wo

wi t n es s es an d Sh aw t o s h o w t hat Sh aw s u ffered fro m a vari e t y o f m en t al i l l n es s es

.

Sh aw’ s wi fe t es t i fi ed t h at Sh aw h ad To u ret t e’ s s y m p t om s i n cl u d in g p ecu l i ar

m o vem en t s

, v erb al t i cs

, an el ev at ed v o i ce, y el l i n g

, an d co n s t an t p ray i n g, s o m et i m es

al o u d

. Sh e t es t i fi ed t h at Sh aw was ex p eri en ci n g el ev at ed lev el s o f h i s s y m p t o m s at

t h e W affl e Ho u s e. Sh aw’ s s i s t er t es t i fi ed o n cro ss

- e x am i n at i o n t h at Sh aw h ad

To u ret t e’ s an d PTSD. S h a w t es ti fi ed o n di rect t h at h e d ev el o p ed n eu ro l o g i cal

p ro b lem s i n t he arm

y

, i ncl u d i ng To u ret t e’ s

, OCD, PTSD, an d a “ ti c-d i s o rd er,” an d h e

19ex p ou n d ed o n h o w s o m e o f t h o s e i ss u es m an i fes t t h em s el v es i n h i s li fe an d h o w t h ey

affect ed h i m

o n t h e n i g h t o f t h e i n ci d en t

.

Fo l l owi n g th e pres en t at i o n o f ev i d en ce, Sh aw’ s co u ns el t h en req u es t ed a ju ry

ch arg e o n d el u s i o n al co m p ul s io n

, wh i ch w as d en i ed o n t he g ro u n d s th at Sh aw h ad

n o t p ro perl y rai s ed an y d efen s e reg ard i n g Sh aw’ s m en t al s t at e b ecau s e Sh aw d i d n ot

g i v e th e St at e n o ti c e o f an i n s an i t y d efen s e. Y et du ri n g cl o s i n g

, Sh aw’ s co u n s el

arg u ed t o t h e j u ry “ Yo u were to l d t h at h e h ad To u ret t e’ s an d

. . . h o w it affect s h i m

.

An d t h e OCD, h o w t hat affect s h i m ”; t h at Sh aw h as “ t wo d i s eas es : A tt en t i o n Defi ci t

Di s o rd er [ s i c ] [ a n d ] Po st T rau m at i c St res s ”; t h at Sh aw h ad “ wo u n d s t h at are n ot

v i s i b l e” an d t h at h e wa s a “ wo u n ded warri o r”; an d t h at “ [t ] h ere’ s a d i fferen ce

b et ween b ei n g s ick an d b ei n g a cri m i n al

. Y o u ’ v e g ot t o d eci d e wh i ch o ne Mr. Sh aw

i s

. Is he s i ck o r i s h e a cri m i n al ? ”

At t h e h eari n g o n t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, Sh aw’ s t ri al co u n sel t es t i fi ed t h at

h e h ad b een pract ici n g l aw ab o u t 6 0 y ears

, an d he s tat ed at t ri al t h at h e h ad n o t t ri ed

a cas e i n 1 5 y ears

. Sh aw’ s t ri al c o u n s e l t h en p ro ceed ed t o g i ve s el f-co n t rad i ct o ry

t es t i m o ny reg ard i ng h i s s trat eg y fo r defen d in g Sh aw. He t es t i fi ed th at h e s p en t a l ot

o f t i m e wi t h Sh aw g e t t i n g read y fo r t h e t ri al an d t h at he h ad n o p ro b l em

co m m u n icat in g wi t h Sh aw. Co u n s el t es t i fi ed t h at h e rev i ewed p o s s i bl e d efen s es wi th

20Sh aw an d d ev el o p ed t h e o p i ni o n t h at s el f-d efen s e was t h e b es t ap pro ach

. W h en as k ed

i f h e t h o u g h t th at Sh a w ’s m e n t a l i l l n es s wo u l d pl ay a ro l e i n t h e d efen s e, Sh aw’ s

co u ns el res p o n d ed , “ I d o n ’ t t h i n k s o .”

Yet Sh aw’ s co u n s el t es t i fi ed t hat p ri o r to t ri al

, h e t ri ed rep eat ed l y t o co n t act Dr.

Sach y b u t t h at Sach y wo u l d n ev er res p o n d

. He was ab l e t o o b t a i n s o m e o f Sh aw’ s

m i l i tary m ed i cal reco rd s

. Ot h er t h an t h es e effo rt s, Sh aw’ s co u n s el m ad e no effo rt to

i n v es t i g at e Sh aw’ s m en t al h eal t h ; he n ev er h ad Sh aw ev a l u a t e d b y a m en t al h eal th

p ro fes s i on al

. Sh aw’ s co u n s el t es t i fi ed t h at “ we” “ d i d n o t t ry t o s h o w t hat [Sh aw] was

i n s a n e o r an y t hi n g l ik e t h at b eca u s e h e wa s n ’t an d i t ’ s dan g ero u s g i v i n g a p u b l i c

p ercep t i on o f s o m eb od y

b ei n g m en t al l y

i l l. It m ak es i t h ard fo r t hem t o li v e t h e res t

o f t h ei r l i fe, an d we t ri ed t o p ro t ect [Sh aw] t h at way as m u ch as we co u ld

. ” (Em

p h as i s

s u p p li ed ). He rei t erat ed t hat h e d i d n o t bel i ev e t hat Sh aw was “ i n s a n e.” Co u n s el

t es t i fi ed t h at h e u n d e r s t o o d t he i n s an i ty d efen s e to b e ap p l i cab l e wh en a p ers o n

can n ot di s t in gu i s h b et ween ri g h t an d wro n g

. An d h e d i d n o t d o an y res earch i n t o t h e

co n seq u en ces o f a v erd i ct o f n o t g u i l t y b y reas o n o f i n s a n i t y o t h er t h an h i s

reco l l ect i o n s o f on e o f h i s o wn c a s e s f r o m t h e p as t

. Co u n s el t es t i fi ed t h at h i s

co m m en t t o t he ju ry ab o u t t h em h av i n g t o deci d e wh et her Sh aw was “ s ic k ” was

s i m p l y i nt en d ed t o get th em t o acq u i t h i m

. Y et h e ad m i t t ed t h at he as k ed fo r a ch arg e

21o n del u s i o n al co m p ul s io n an d t h o u g h t t hat Sh aw was en t i t l ed to s u ch a ch arg e b as ed

o n t h e p an ic at t ack t h at Sh aw s u ffered aft er t h e p o l i ce arri v ed

.

Al s o at t h e h eari n g o n t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al

, Sh aw’ s wi fe an d Sh aw t es t i fi ed

t h at t h ey t h o u gh t t h at Sh a w’ s m en t al h eal t h is s u es w o u l d fact o r i n t o hi s d efen se at

t ri al

. Sh aw al s o t es t i fi ed t h at hi s t ri al co u n s el beg an rep res en t i n g h i m ap p ro x i m at el y

o n e y ear p ri o r t o t h e tri al an d t h at co u n s el was p ro v i d ed wi t h Sh aw’ s m ed ical reco rd s

fro m h i s m i l it ary

s erv i ce an d co n t act i n fo rm at io n fo r Sh aw’ s t reat in g p s y ch i at ri s t

.

(a) W it h reg ard t o d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce of co u n s el

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f

Geo rg i a h as d es cri b ed t h e p ri n ci p l es o f S t r i ckl a n d as t h ey rel at e t o d efen s e co u n sel ’ s

d eci s i o n s reg ard i n g in v es t i g at i o n

, i n cl ud i n g s trat eg i c ch o i ces m ad e aft er l es s t h an

co m p l et e i n v es t i g at i o n :

“ S t rat eg i c ch o i ces m ad e aft er th o ro ug h in v es t i g at i o n o f l aw an d fact s

rel ev an t t o pl au s i b l e op t i o n s are v i rt u al l y u nch al l en geab l e; an d s t rat eg i c

c h o i c e s m ad e aft er l es s t h an co m p l et e i n v es t i gat i o n are reas o n ab l e

p r e c i s el y t o th e ex t en t t hat reas o n ab l e p ro fes s i on al ju d g m en t s s u p p o r t

t h e l i m i t at i o n s o n i n v es t i g a t i o n

. In o t h er wo rd s, co u n sel has a d u t y t o

m ak e reas o n ab l e i n v es t ig at i o n s or t o m a k e a reas o nab l e d eci s i o n t hat

m ak es p a r tic u la r inve stiga

tions unne c es sary

. In an y i n effect iv en es s cas e,

a p art i cu l a r d e c i s i o n no t t o i n v es t i g at e m us t b e d i rect l y as s es s ed fo r

reas o n ab l en es s i n al l t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

, ap p l y in g a h eav y m eas u re o f

d eferen ce t o co u n s el ’ s ju d g m en t s

. ”

22Ma r t i n v. Ba r r et t

, 2 7 9 Ga. 5 9 3

, 5 9 3 -5 9 4 (6 1 9 SE2 d 6 5 6 ) (2 00 5 ), q u o t i n g W i g g i n s v.

S mi th

, 5 3 9 U

. S. 5 1 0

, 5 2 1-5 2 2 (II) (A) (1 2 3 SCt 2 52 7

, 1 5 6 LE2 d 4 7 1 ) (2 0 0 3 ).

Fu rt h erm o re, i n t h e ab sen ce o f s o m e o t h er d et erm i n at i o n reg ard i ng t h e d efen d an t ’ s

m en t al s t at e, “ wh ere a defen s e a t t o rn ey h as recei v ed in fo rm at io n fro m a rel i ab l e

s o u rce t hat h i s cl i e n t h a s h ad a hi s to ry o f p s y ch i at ri c p ro b l em s

, b u t fai l ed to

ad eq u a t e l y i n ves t i g at e t hi s h i st o ry

, co u n s el fai led t o p ro v i d e effect i ve as s i s t an ce.”

Ma r t i n

, 2 7 9 G a

. at 5 9 4 (ci tat i o n s an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). An d at t o rn ey s u s u al l y

m ay n o t rel y o n t h ei r own as s es s m en t o f th e d efen d an t ’ s m en t al heal t h

. Id

. at 5 9 5 (“ It

m u st b e a v ery rare ci rcu m s tan ce i n d eed w h ere a d eci si on n ot t o i n v es t i g at e wo u l d b e

‘ reas o n ab l e ’ a f

t er co u ns el h as n o t ice o f t h e cl i en t ’ s hi s t o ry o f m en tal p ro b l em s .”)

(ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i t ted ).

Here, we co n cl u d e t hat Sh aw’ s t ri al co un s e l ’ s pe r f or m a nce was d efi ci en t i n t h at

h e ei th er s eri ou s l y m i s h a n d l ed an at t em p t t o as s ert a d efen s e o f d el u s i o n al

co m p u l s i o n o r m ad e an u nreas o n ab l e deci s i o n n o t t o i nv es t ig at e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f

as s ert i n g t h at d efen se.

As s h own ab ov e, Sh aw’ s t ri al co u n s el was aware at t h e t i m e o f t ri al t h at Sh aw

l i kel y h ad PTSD an d o t h er m al ad i es t h at co u l d h av e affect ed h i s b eh av i o r o n t h e n i g ht

o f t h e i n ci d en t . Ev en t h e St at e, aft er a b ri ef t el ep ho n e cal l wi th Dr. Sach y , o b ject ed

23t o h i s t es ti m o n y o n t h e g ro un d t h at i t wo ul d l ead th e ju ry t o co ncl u d e t h at Sh aw was

i n s an e. An d al t h o ug h co un s el h ad l i s t ed Dr. Sach y

, Sh aw’ s p sy ch i at ri s t, as a wi t n es s

week s b efo re t ri al

, co u n s el d i d n o t s peak wi t h Sach y d u r i n g t h at t i m e an d d i d n ot

p ro p erl y n o t i fy t h e s t at e o f an in t en t t o as s ert an i ns an i ty d efen s e or t o cal l an ex p ert

wi t n es s . Fu rt h er, an d al t h o u g h co u n s el cl ai m ed at th e s t art o f t ri al t h at h e h ad m ad e

a d eci s i o n n o t t o as sert s u ch a d efen s e b ecau s e o f a t he p o t en t i al s t i g m a t h a t S h a w

m i g h t s u ffer i n t h e fu t u re, Sh aw’ s co u n s el u n s u cces sfu l l y c o n t in u ed t o p res en t

t es t i m o ny fro m Sach y ab o u t Sh aw’ s m en t al s tat e; h o p ed h e co ul d s t i l l q u al i fy Sach y

as an ex p ert ; el i ci ted tes ti m on y fro m Sh aw, h i s wi fe, an d s i s ter ab o u t Sh aw’ s m en t al

co n di t i o n a n d t h e effect i t h ad o n h i m o n t h e n i gh t o f t h e i n ci d en t ; u n s u cces s fu l l y

at t em p t ed t o h av e t h e co u rt ch arg e t h e ju ry o n t h e d efen se of d el us i o n al co m p u l s i o n;

an d arg u ed t o th e ju ry

t h at t h ey s h o u l d acq u i t Sh aw b ecau s e h e was “ s ick .”

M o reo v er, t h e ev i d en ce s t ro n g l y s u g g es t s t h at co un s el d i d n o t fu l l y u nd ers t an d

t h e d efen s e of d el u si o nal co m p u l s i o n a n d d i d n o t p erfo rm an y res earch ab o u t t h e

effect o f a s s ert i ng s u ch a defen s e. Co u n sel t es t i fi ed t h at h e u n d ers to o d t h e i n s an i t y

d efen s e t o m ean in ab i l i ty to d i s t i n gu i sh r i gh t fro m wro ng

. T hat u n ders t an d i n g i s

co rrect

, see OCGA § 16 -3 -2

, b u t co u n s el fai l ed t o d es cri be a del u s io nal co m p u l s i o n,

wh i ch al l o ws a d efen s e ev en i f t h e d efen d an t u nd ers t an d s t h e d if f e r e n c e b et ween ri g ht

24an d wro n g

. 9 An d a deci s i o n “ b as ed u p o n [a] l ack o f u n d ers tan d i n g o f o r fam i l i ari t y

wi t h t h e rel ev an t law” i s n o t s t rat eg i c. S u l l i va n v. Kemp

, 2 9 3 G a. 7 7 0, 7 7 4 (2 ) (7 4 9

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

Ev en i f Sh aw’ s co u ns el d i d m ak e t he s t rat eg i c d eci s i o n n o t t o as s ert an i n s an i t y

d efen s e, t h at d eci s i o n

, t o o

, was l eg al l y fl awed

. Co un s el t es t i fi ed t h at h e b as ed h i s

d eci s i o n

, i n p art

, o n th e fact t h at h e h ad co n cl u d ed

, wi t h o u t ex p ert ad v i ce, t h at Sh aw

was n ot i n s an e: “ I d i dn ’ t t hi n k h e was i n s an e.” Th u s, t o t h e b es t o f h i s reco l l ect i o n,

h e d i d n o t an t ici pat e t hat Sh aw’ s m en t al co n d i ti o n wo u l d p l ay a ro l e i n t h e d efen s e.

Yet t h e Su p rem e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t h at a l awy er i s n o t au t h o ri zed t o m ak e s u ch

a d et erm i n at i on o n h i s o wn :

wh ere a co n di t i o n m ay n o t b e v i s i b l e t o a lay m an

, co u n s el can n o t

d ep e n d o n h i s o r her own ev al u at i o n o f s o m eo n e’ s s an i t y o nce h e h as

reas o n to bel i ev e an i nv es t i g at i o n i s w a r r a n t ed b ecau s e, wh ere s u ch a

9 “ Gen eral in san it y i s n ot a d efen s e t o a cri m e; th e o n l y d efen s es reco g n i zed in

Geo rg i a are fo u n d i n O CGA § 1 6 -3 -2 [] (n o cap aci t y t o d i st i ng u i s h ri g h t fro m wro n g

at t h e t im e o f t h e act

, o m is s i o n

, o r n eg l i g en ce ) an d OCGA § 16 -3 -3 [ ] (d el u s i o n al

co m p u l s i o n at t he t i m e o f th e act

, o m i s s i o n

, o r n eg l i g en ce co n s t i t u t i n g t h e cri m e).

Go u l d v. S t a t e

, 1 6 8 Ga. Ap p

. 6 0 5

, 6 0 9 (4 ) (3 0 9 SE2 d 8 8 8 ) (1 9 8 3 ) ; R e e v e s v

. S t a t e

, 1 9 6 Ga. 6 0 4

, 6 1 4

- 6 1 5 (a) (2 7 SE2 d 3 7 5

, 38 1 (1 9 4 3 ) (“ ev en i f on e h as reas o n

s u ffi ci en t t o d is t i ng u i s h b et ween ri gh t an d wro n g

, y et if in co n s eq u en ce o f s o m e

d el u s i o n t h e wi l l i s o verm as t ered

, an d t h ere i s n o cri m i n a l i n t e n t

, h e i s n ot

res p o n s i b l e, p ro v i d ed t h at t h e act i t s el f i s co n n ect ed wi t h t h e p ecu l i ar d el u s i o n u n d er

wh i ch t h e d efen d an t i s l ab o ri ng ”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

25co n d i t i o n ex i s t s

, t he defen d an t ’ s at t orn ey i s t h e s o l e h o pe th at i t wi l l be

b ro u g h t t o t h e at t en t io n o f t he co urt

.

Ma r t i n

, 2 7 9 Ga. at 5 9 5 (ci t at i o n

, p u n ct uat i o n

, an d em p has i s o m it t ed ). Here, Sh aw’ s

co u ns el k n ew at t h e t i m e o f tri al t h at Sh aw had been i n co m b at

, h ad p s y c h o l o g i c al

d i s o rd ers

, an d was s eek i n g t reat m en t fro m a p s y ch i at ri s t

, y et h e rel i ed o n h i s o wn

o p i n i o n th at Sh aw was n o t i n s an e, a d efe n s e t h a t c o u n s el ap pears t o h av e o n l y

p art i al l y u n d ers t o od

, wi th ou t p erfo rm i n g ad d i ti o nal i n v es t ig at i o n

, i n d eci d i n g n o t to

p u rs u e a d el u s i o nal co m

p u l s i o n d efen s e.

Fo r t h e ab ov e reas o n s, we c o n cl u d e t h at t ri al co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was

d efi ci en t u n der S t r i ckl an d

.

(b ) Wi t h r e g ard t o h arm

, we co n cl u d e th at t h e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce was

s u ffi ci en t t o u n d erm in e co n fi d en ce i n t h e o u t co m e o f t he t ri al

.

At t h e h eari n g o n t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, Sh aw p res en t ed th e t es t i m o n y o f Dr.

Kev in Ri ch ard s

, a l i cen s ed p sy ch o l o g is t cert i fi ed i n fo ren si c ps y ch o l o g y b y t h e

Am eri can Bo ard o f Fo ren s i c Ps y ch o l o g y w i th s i g n i fi can t ex p eri en ce ev al u at i n g

m em b ers o f t h e m i l i t ary an d t h o s e wh o h av e b een rel eas ed fro m t h e m il i tary

. Ri ch ard s

h ad ex am i n ed Sh aw an d p rep ared a rep o rt o f h i s o p i n io n s b as ed o n t h at ex am i n at i o n.

Ri ch ard s d i ag n o s ed Sh aw as h av i n g To u r e t t e ’ s s y n d ro m e, OCD, an d PTSD. Sh aw

26h ad been d i ag n o sed p rev i o u s l y wi t h To u ret t e’ s an d OCD wh en h e was i n th e m i l i t ary

,

an d Ri ch ard s fo u n d Sh aw’ s co n d i t i o n t o be co n s i s t en t wi t h t h e fi n d in gs o f t h e

m i l i tary d o ct o rs

. Ri ch ard s tes ti fi ed t h at T ou ret t e’ s can cau s e Sh aw t o y el l o b s cen i t i es

,

t h at i t can be ex acerb at ed by s t res s

, an d th at i t can cau s e Sh aw t o ap p ear to b e u n d er

t h e i n fl u en ce o f al co h o l o r d ru g s

. He t es t i fi ed t h at Sh aw’ s OCD ca u s e s h i m t o b e

u n ab le to “ d i s en gag e fro m an i n t eract i on u n les s h e b el iev es t hi n gs are p o s i t i v e,” an d

t h at a s it u at i o n c an cau se hi m t o b eco m e i n creas i n gl y an x i o us as h e co n t i n u es “ to

m ak e effo rt s t o m ak e [an ] i nt eract i o n en d o n a po s i ti v e n o t e.” Fi n al l y

, Ri ch ard s

t es t i fi ed t h a t P T S D c an cau s e a p ers o n t o p ercei v e t h at t h ey are ex peri en ci ng a

s t res sfu l s i t u at i o n th at

, i n fact

, t h ey are n o t i n

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, Sh aw h ad a PTSD

s y m p to m t h at can cau s e h im to b el i ev e t h at h e i s i n d an g er wh en h e i s n o t. It cau s es

h i m t o d i rect h i s b eh av i o r “ b as ed o n a fau l t y p ercep t i o n . . . t h en b eh av in g as i f t h at

b el i ef were t ru e o r t h at p ercep t i o n t ru e.” Ri ch ard s al s o p erfo rm ed ps y ch o l og i cal t es t s

t o det erm i n e w h et h er Sh aw w as fei g n i n g h i s s y m p t o m s, an d Ri ch ard s co n cl u d ed t h at

h e was n o t

.

Bas ed o n th e ab o v e d i ag n o s es

, Ri ch ard s t e s t i f i ed t h at Sh aw’ s T ou ret t e’ s

s y m p to m s co ul d h av e cau s ed Sh aw t o m ak e i nv o l u n t ary v erb al n oi s es i n t h e res t ro o m

t h at s o u n d ed l ik e arg u i n g an d co u l d h av e m ad e Sh aw ap p ear t o b e “ b i zarre” wh en

27Sh aw ap p ro ach ed t h e v i ct i m an d h i s g i rl fri en d ; th at wh en h e ap p ro ach ed t h e v i ct i m

,

Sh aw’ s O CD c a u s ed h i m t o s en s e t h at t h e v ict i m was n o t res po n d i n g an d t h at t h e

i n t e ract i o n was no t a p o s i t iv e o n e s o h e s at i n t h e b oo t h an d p ers i s t ed i n sp eak i n g

wi t h th e v i ct i m ; t h at b ecau s e o f h i s PTSD, wh en Sh aw saw a kn i fe, h e t h o u g h t h e was

i n a li fe-t h reat en i n g s i t u at io n an d t h at “ h e s tart ed to s ort o f g o in t o m i li t ary m o d e an d

h e was l oo k i n g fo r an es cap e ro u t e an d fi g u ri n g o u t h o w t o pro t ect th e p eo p l e h e was

wi t h an d h im s el f”; th at ev en i f t h e k n i fe had b een p u t away

, Sh aw t ho u gh t it was s t i l l

t h ere; an d t h at as a res u l t

, Sh aw d i d n o t b el i ev e t h at h e h ad an y o p t io n o t h er t h an to

d i s ab l e an d di sarm t h e vi ct i m

. Ri ch ard s tes t ifi ed t hat in h is o p i n i o n

, t h e i n ci d en t

rep res en t ed “ an acu t e ep i s o d e o f [Sh aw’ s ] i l ln es s es w here t he s y m p t om s were acu t el y

ex acerb at ed .” Ri ch ard s co n cl u d ed t h at Sh aw’ s b eh av i o r am o un t e d t o a d el u s i o n al

co m p u l s i o n un der t h e ci rcu m s t an c e s a nd that h e wo u l d hav e gi v en t h e s am e t es t i m o ny

i f cal l ed at t ri al

. He ad m i t t ed

, h o wev er, t h at Sh aw’ s co n s u m p t i o n o f al co h o l co u ld

h av e ex acerb at ed Sh aw’ s s y m p t o m s

, b u t h i s o veral l o p i n io n was t h a t Sh aw’ s

s y m p to m s t h at n i gh t were ex p lai n ed b y h i s m en t al co n d i t i o n n o t b y al co h o l o r an y

m ed i cat i o n s t h at h e m i g h t h av e b een t ak i n g

.

Th i s t es t i m o n y w as s u ffi ci en t t o rai s e a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l it y t h a t t h e ju ry

wo u l d h av e accep ted t he defen s e o f d el u s i o n a l co m p u l s i o n

. Su ch a d efen s e i s

28av ai l ab l e o n l y wh en t h e d efen dan t i s “ s u fferi ng u n d er del u s i o ns o f an ab s u rd an d

u n fo un d ed n at u re an d was co m p el l ed b y t h at d el u s i on t o act i n a m an n er t h at wo u ld

h av e b een l awfu l an d ri g h t i f t h e fact s h ad b een as t h e d efen d an t im ag i ned t h em to

b e.” W oo d s v. S t a t e

, 2 9 1 Ga. 8 0 4

, 8 1 0 (3 ) (7 3 3 SE2 d 7 3 0 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). “ A fi n di n g o f i n s an it y b as ed u p o n OCGA § 1 6-3 -3 req u i res

p ro o f t h at (1 ) t h e accu s ed act ed u n d er a d el u s io n al co m p ul s i o n ; (2 ) t h e cri m i n al act

was co n n ect ed wi t h th e d el us i on ; an d (3 ) t h e del u s i o n rel at ed t o a fact wh i ch

, i f t ru e,

wo u l d h av e ju s t i fi ed t h e act

. “ Ap p l i n g v. S ta t e

, 2 22 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 7

, 3 2 9 (3 ) (4 7 4 SE2 d

2 3 7 ) (1 9 9 6 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Here, al l t h ree req u i rem en t s were s ho wn

.

In s u m

, Sh aw h as es t ab l i sh ed t h at h e recei ved i n effect iv e as si s t an ce o f co u n s el

i n t h at h is co u n sel ei t h er s eri o u s l y m is h an dl ed an at t em p t t o a s s e rt a d efen s e o f

d el u s i o nal co m

p u l si o n o r m ad e an u nreas o n ab le d eci s io n no t t o i n ves t i g at e t h e

p o s s i b i l i ty o f as sert i n g t h a t d e fen s e. Fo r t h i s reas o n

, we rev ers e t h e d en i al o f h i s

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

. See Fed a k v. S t a t e

, 30 4 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 0

, 5 8 6 (1 ) (6 9 6 SE2 d 4 2 1 )

(2 0 1 0) (i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce es t ab l i s h ed wh ere t h e r e was a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y

“ t h at h ad t ri al co u n s el i n v es t i g at ed [t h e d efen dan t ’ s ] MS an d it s i m p act o n h i s

co g ni t i v e a b i l i t i es an d p res en t ed ev id en ce reg ard i n g t h e s am e, t h at ev i d en ce co u ld

h av e i n fl uen ced t he o u t co m e o f t h e t ri al ”) (ci tat i on om i t t ed ). W e n eed n o t reach t h e

29rem ai n i n g of en u m erat i o n s o f erro r o n t h e g ro un d t h at th ey are n o t l i k el y t o recu r at

t ri al

.

Ju d g men t r ever

s ed

. Mer ci er

, J., co n cu r

s

. El l i n g t o n

, P. J., co n cu r

s i n j u d g men t

o n l y.

30