Court Opinion

ID: 9960410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 13:03:34.023523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:26.060502
License: Public Domain

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                    Decided: March 19, 2024

              S24A0179. RICHARDSON v. THE STATE.

      LAGRUA, Justice.

      Appellant Matthew Richardson appeals his convictions for

felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of

Julius Aderhold, III. 1 Richardson contends that (1) the trial court

committed plain error when it admitted testimony of a detective that

      1 The crimes occurred in Atlanta on January 30, 2018. On May 1, 2018,

a Fulton County grand jury indicted Richardson for felony murder predicated
on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Count 1), two counts of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon upon Jabari Johnson and Airieon
Young (Counts 2 and 3), terroristic threats (Count 4), and possession of a
firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 5). Richardson was tried in
November 2019, and the jury found him guilty of all counts. The trial court
sentenced Richardson to serve life in prison with the possibility of parole on
Count 1, a consecutive five-year term in prison on Count 5, and 20 years in
prison to run concurrent on Counts 2, 3, and 4. Richardson filed a timely
motion for new trial, which was amended through new counsel. After holding
an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial on June
6, 2023. Richardson filed a timely notice of appeal, and his case was docketed
to this Court’s term beginning in December 2023 and submitted for a decision
on the briefs.
improperly     bolstered     out-of-court    statements      by   two    other

witnesses; and (2) his trial counsel provided constitutionally

ineffective assistance by failing to object to that same testimony.2

For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

      1. This case involves a drive-by shooting on January 30, 2018,

during which Richardson’s friend and passenger Aderhold was shot

and killed. The evidence presented at trial showed that Richardson

was upset with Jabari Johnson for his alleged involvement in

stealing a gun belonging to Richardson’s cousin. Johnson testified

that, on January 29, Richardson called Johnson’s girlfriend and

asked about the stolen gun. The next day, January 30, Richardson

visited Johnson’s house. Discovering that only Johnson’s two sisters

were home, Richardson called Johnson on the phone while standing

      2 Richardson also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

his conviction for terroristic threats. However, although he lists that claim as
one of his enumerated errors, he presents no legal argument or citation of
authority in support. Thus, this contention is deemed abandoned. See former
Supreme Court Rule 22 (2023) (“Any enumerated error not supported by
argument or citation of authority in the brief shall be deemed abandoned. . .
.”). See also Smith v. State, 315 Ga. 357, 358 n.2 (882 SE2d 289) (2022)
(deeming abandoned under former Rule 22 an unsupported claim of error
pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence).
                                       2
by the front door. Johnson and his two sisters testified that

Richardson threatened Johnson during the call, telling him,

“Somebody about to die about this gun today. I could kill your sister

right now.” All three also testified that Richardson said he was going

to go to the house of Johnson’s friend Aireon Young to “shoot it up.”

After ten minutes of arguing with Johnson over the phone,

Richardson left Johnson’s house.

     At another point that afternoon at Young’s house, the mother

of Young’s child was upstairs and saw a man standing outside the

front door holding a gun. She did not answer the door, but she called

Young and said a man was there with a gun. The man left by the

end of this phone call. Young later told investigators that this man

was Richardson based on what his child’s mother told him, but at

trial, both Young and his child’s mother testified that they did not

know if the man was Richardson.

     During these phone calls to Young and Johnson, Young was

driving Johnson and their friend Marquise Arnold to pick up

Arnold’s paycheck. In response to Richardson’s threats against

                                   3
Johnson and Young, Young called Richardson to see what the

problem was. After that phone call, Young changed course and drove

home. Young’s mother, his young child, and his child’s mother were

present at the house. After Young, Johnson, and Arnold arrived,

Young’s family and Arnold went upstairs because Young told them

Richardson was coming with a gun. Johnson went to the kitchen,

and Young stood in front of the house talking on the phone with

Richardson. Within minutes, Richardson drove an SUV into Young’s

neighborhood. Aderhold was in the front passenger seat of the SUV,

facing the side of the street Young’s house was on.

     Testimony at trial diverged about what happened next.

Johnson testified that he heard approximately three gunshots while

inside the house, grabbed a pistol, exited through the back door, and

ran along the side of the house to the front. On the street in front of

the house, Johnson saw Richardson leaning out of an SUV shooting

a handgun at him and Young. Johnson also witnessed Young

shooting at Richardson, and Johnson began shooting at Richardson

as well until his gun jammed, at which point he ran inside the house,

                                  4
reloaded, and then ran back outside through the front door. Johnson

testified that he did not see who started shooting first because he

was inside; he did not know whether it was Richardson or Young.

     Young testified that, while he was standing in front of his

house, he saw Richardson driving up in an SUV and heard gunshots

coming from the direction of the street where the SUV was driving.

Young assumed Richardson was shooting at him, although he could

not see whether Richardson had a gun. Young began shooting at the

SUV. At that moment, Young could not see Johnson, but believed he

was outside by the side of the house when the shooting began,

explaining that he thought so “because [Johnson was] still over

there, like, spazzing out and stuff, pacing back and forth . . . . talking

to himself and stuff.” Young testified that, two months later,

Johnson told him that he was the one who started shooting first, not

Richardson. Johnson testified that he never told Young that he shot

first and noted that he and Young were no longer friends due to a

                                    5
later incident.3

      According to testimony from Young, Johnson, and others in the

neighborhood, Richardson stopped the SUV a few houses away,

exited, and ran to a neighbor’s house to find help. Young and

Johnson went back inside Young’s house and waited for police to

arrive. Richardson got back in the SUV, but a police officer

responding to the scene stopped and apprehended him before he

could leave the neighborhood. The officer found Aderhold dead in the

passenger seat, bleeding from a gunshot wound.

      Investigators retrieved a .38-caliber revolver from behind the

driver’s seat in the SUV and a .40-caliber pistol underneath

Aderhold’s body. The gun behind the driver’s seat contained five

spent shell casings, but the gun underneath Aderhold was fully

loaded. Investigators also retrieved a 9mm pistol from Young and a

.45-caliber pistol from Johnson. Several 9mm and .45-caliber casings

were recovered from the scene. The medical examiner testified that

      3 During trial, Young testified that he faced murder charges for a later,

unrelated shooting. Johnson testified that he was also involved in that shooting
but was not charged.
                                       6
Aderhold’s cause of death was a .45-caliber bullet that entered

through his right shoulder and penetrated his head. Of the three

shooters, only Johnson used a .45-caliber pistol.

     That evening, Young and Johnson were taken to the police

station where Detective Nikita Moss interviewed them separately

after they waived their Miranda 4 rights. 5 During his interview,

Johnson said that he heard gunshots while inside Young’s house,

ran outside through the back door, and began shooting back.

Additionally, Johnson told Detective Moss during his interview that

the initial “three shots didn’t come from [Young’s] gun.” At trial,

Johnson gave a similar account and admitted that he implicated

Richardson, but he testified that he did not know who shot first.

     During Young’s interview, he told Detective Moss that he saw

Richardson driving down the street “flashing” a handgun and that

he saw Richardson shoot first. At trial, Young admitted he told

     4 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (86 SCt 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966).
     5 Young, Johnson, and Detective Moss testified regarding Young’s and

Johnson’s out-of-court interview statements, and a video of Young’s interview
was played for the jury.
                                     7
Detective Moss that Richardson shot first, but he repeatedly

testified that he lied during that interview and did not actually see

who shot first.

     While under direct examination at trial, Detective Moss

testified as follows regarding her interviews of Young and Johnson:

     STATE:       What about Dominique Young, while you
                  talked to him, did he talk freely to you?
     MOSS:        Yes.
     STATE:       Did he speak as if what he said was rehearsed?
     MOSS:        No.
     STATE:       Did every detail that he gave to you, did it
                  sound from talking with both Jabari Johnson
                  and Dominique Young as if they were
                  attempting to give you the same story?
     MOSS:        No, ma’am.
     STATE:       And why do you say that?
     MOSS:        From details that Dominique gave, some were
                  not the same as Jabari’s. For instance,
                  Dominique stated that Jabari was outside with
                  him and ran to the side of the house, but Jabari
                  said he walked outside when he heard the
                  shots, ran back through the house to the side of
                  the house.
     STATE:       And were both of them talking about various
                  times? Like, in other words, as they are talking
                  to you, are they talking conversationally?
     MOSS:        Yes.
     STATE:       Okay. And did they seem as if they were
                  searching for what the truth was while they
                  were talking to you?

                                    8
     MOSS:      Yes.
     STATE:     Did they seem to have trouble figuring out or
                telling you what the truth was?
     MOSS:      What do you mean?
     STATE:     What I mean is, did they seem to have any
                trouble telling you what they were recounting?
     MOSS:      No.
     STATE:     And was the information that they were
                recounting coming freely?
     MOSS:      Yes.

Richardson’s trial counsel did not object to this testimony.

     2. On appeal, Richardson contends that—when Detective Moss

answered “yes” to the prosecutor’s question, “Did they seem as if

they were searching for what the truth was while they were talking

to you?”—Detective Moss improperly bolstered Young’s and

Johnson’s interview statements that Richardson shot at them first

and they only returned fire in self-defense. Richardson argues that

the trial court committed plain error by admitting Detective Moss’s

testimony at trial and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not

objecting to the testimony. We hold that Richardson has failed to

show plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel.

     We have explained that, pursuant to OCGA § 24-6-620,

                                  9
     a witness, even an expert, can never bolster the credibility
     of another witness as to whether the witness is telling the
     truth. Credibility of a witness is not beyond the ken of the
     jurors but, to the contrary, is a matter solely within the
     province of the jury. When a witness’s statement does not
     directly address the credibility of another witness,
     however, there is no improper bolstering. And when we
     evaluate whether testimony constitutes improper
     bolstering, we consider the disputed testimony in context.

Brown v. State, 302 Ga. 454, 460-461 (2) (b) (807 SE2d 369) (2017)

(citations and punctuation omitted).

     (a) We apply the plain-error standard to evidentiary rulings to

which the appellant did not object at trial. Pender v. State, 311 Ga.

98, 111 (3) (856 SE2d 302) (2021); OCGA § 24-1-103 (d). To establish

plain error, Richardson “must point to a legal error that was not

affirmatively waived, was clear and obvious beyond reasonable

dispute, affected his substantial rights, and seriously affected the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

Carter v. State, 317 Ga. 689, 693 (2) (895 SE2d 295) (2023) (citations

and punctuation omitted). However, if Richardson fails to show just

one of these elements, we need not analyze the rest. Id.

     Any error here was not clear and obvious beyond reasonable

                                 10
dispute. “For an error to be obvious for purposes of plain-error

review, it must be plain under controlling precedent or in view of the

unequivocally clear words of a statute or rule.” Grier v. State, 313

Ga. 236, 242 (2) (b) (869 SE2d 423) (2022). We have interpreted

OCGA § 24-6-620 to mean that a witness may not “directly address

the credibility of another. . . .” Brown, 302 Ga. at 460-461 (2) (b)

(emphasis supplied). But our precedents permit a witness to still

testify about another witness’s statements in ways that do not

directly comment on that witness’s credibility. See, e.g., Pender, 311

Ga. at 113 (3) (“While it would have been improper for the detective

to testify about whether he believed [the witness] was telling the

truth, it was permissible for the detective to discuss whether [the

witness’s] statements to him . . . were consistent with other

information. . . .”); Ivey v. State, 305 Ga. 156, 161-162 (2) (c) (824

SE2d 242) (2019) (holding that a detective’s testimony that the

defendant’s “demeanor changed . . . you could tell that the wheels

were turning” was not a “direct comment on [the defendant’s]

veracity”); Harris v. State, 304 Ga. 652, 657 (2) (c) (821 SE2d 346)

                                 11
(2018) (holding that a detective’s testimony that shooting victims

“tell you the whole story about what happened” and “that is basically

the pattern that [I] saw here” was not a direct comment on the victim

witness’s credibility). 6

      Here, we consider the “disputed testimony in context.” Brown,

302 Ga. at 461 (2) (b). Considering the other questions asked of

Detective Moss, it appears her testimony only explained how Young

and Johnson said what they said, which is not necessarily a direct

comment on their credibility. Indeed, the next question from the

prosecutor was whether Young and Johnson had “trouble figuring

out or telling you what the truth was,” which the prosecutor

rephrased to, “What I mean is, did they seem to have any trouble

telling you what they were recounting?” Depending on context, a

mere reference to “the truth” does not necessarily indicate direct

      6 We note that this   Court has often used the words “credibility” and
“veracity” interchangeably in analyzing OCGA § 24-6-620. See, e.g., Harris,
304 Ga. at 657 (2) (c) (“Viewed in context, Detective Puhala’s testimony was
not a direct comment on Ellison’s veracity. When a witness’s statement does
not directly address the credibility of another witness, there is no improper
bolstering.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). In so doing, we have not
ascribed different meanings to those words, and we likewise ascribe none here.
                                     12
testimony on whether one is telling the truth. See Bedford v. State,

311 Ga. 329, 335-336 (4) (857 SE2d 708) (2021) (holding that, in

context, a witness’s testimony that “the truth stays very similar”

was not improper bolstering because it only addressed whether

another witness’s statements were consistent with other evidence),

disapproved of on other grounds in Clark v. State, 315 Ga. 423, 436

(3) (b) n.16 (883 SE2d 317) (2023). In context here, Detective Moss’s

use of the phrase “searching for what the truth was” did not directly

address the credibility of Young and Johnson but instead focused on

their demeanors. See Ivey, 305 Ga. at 162 (2) (c). Accordingly, we

hold that Detective Moss’s testimony was not a clear and obvious

case of improper bolstering, so Richardson has failed to establish

plain error from the admission of this testimony. See Jones v. State,

299 Ga. 40, 44 (3) (785 SE2d 886) (2016).

     (b) To show ineffective assistance of counsel for his trial

counsel’s failure to object to Detective Moss’s testimony, Richardson

“must prove both that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient

and that there is a reasonable probability that the trial result would

                                 13
have been different if not for the deficient performance.” Harris, 304

Ga. at 654 (2) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (104

SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984)). As with plain error, if Richardson

fails to meet the requirements of one element of the Strickland test,

we need not analyze the other. Harris, 304 Ga. at 654 (2).

      We hold that Richardson has failed to show that his trial

counsel’s performance was deficient. “To satisfy the deficiency

prong, [Richardson] must demonstrate that his attorney performed

at trial in an objectively unreasonable way considering all the

circumstances and in the light of prevailing professional norms.”

Harris v. State, 310 Ga. 372, 384 (4) (850 SE2d 77) (2020) (citation

and punctuation omitted). We have already held that this testimony

was not a clear case of improper bolstering. Accordingly, we cannot

say that no reasonable lawyer would have failed to object to such

testimony on the grounds of improper bolstering.7 See Ivey, 305 Ga.

      7 That Richardson’s trial counsel testified at the motion-for-new-trial
hearing that she now understood the statement to be bolstering and had no
strategy behind failing to object does not change our analysis. Our standard is
objective reasonableness and we are not constrained to “the subjective reasons

                                      14
at 162 (2) (c) (“Because [the detective’s] testimony was not a direct

comment on Ivey’s veracity . . . Ivey has not shown that no

reasonable lawyer would have failed to object to [the detective’s]

testimony.”)     (citation   and     punctuation      omitted).    Therefore,

Richardson’s claims fail.

      Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

offered by trial counsel for [her] conduct.” Lane v. State, 312 Ga. 619, 623 (2)
(a) (864 SE2d 34) (2021); Jones, 292 Ga. at 600 (6) (d) & n.7 (explaining that
“hindsight has no place in an assessment of the performance of trial counsel”
when rejecting trial counsel’s subjective belief whether testimony was
improper bolstering).
                                      15