Adams v. State
322 Ga. App. 782
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Robert Louis Adams was convicted by a jury of burglary after a November 10, 2010 incident in which a neighbor, Christopher Gillings, shot a fleeing intruder (Adams) in the leg.
- Victim/tenant testimony: Gillings and neighbor Jessica Bentley observed two men leaving a unit through a kicked-in door carrying bags; Bentley identified Adams as the man she had seen lingering in the parking lot. Occupants of the burglarized unit (Burton and Robinson) did not know Adams and reported items missing. Adams gave a recorded statement to police but did not testify at trial.
- Adams moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on multiple grounds (counsel’s age/hearing/alcohol use, inadequate cross-examinations, and delegation during jury selection). The trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal Adams argued counsel performed deficiently and that prejudice resulted; the Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for clear error and applied established ineffective-assistance legal standards.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding (1) many of Adams’ complaints were not properly enumerated or supported, (2) the record showed counsel cross-examined key witnesses and pursued strategic choices, and (3) Adams failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel’s age/health/alcohol impaired representation | Counsel was 91, drank daily at lunch, hard of hearing and thus ineffective | Trial court found counsel participated vigorously, asked to stand near witnesses and advised court when he couldn’t hear | Claim deemed abandoned for failure to enumerate; in any event trial court’s factual findings supported denial of new trial |
| Cross-examination of Gillings | Counsel failed to expose inconsistencies about location, sightlines, and taped statements to undermine credibility | Counsel focused on attacking Gillings’ credibility and elicited several inconsistencies; cross scope is tactical | No ineffective assistance — cross-examination was adequate and tactical choices are protected |
| Cross-examination of Burton and Robinson | Counsel failed to elicit that stolen items’ size/weight made it unlikely one man both carry items and reach for a gun | Counsel did cross-examine Robinson about stolen items; Burton testified she reported nothing missing | No ineffective assistance — counsel reasonably pursued lines of inquiry; strong presumption of competent strategy |
| Jury selection / voir dire delegation | Counsel delegated juror strikes to Adams, depriving him of counsel’s assistance | Counsel testified he consulted Adams on strikes and delegated where appropriate; no record of prejudice | Even assuming deficient performance, Adams showed no prejudice or different outcome; voir dire not transcribed, so trial court ruling presumed supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. App. 77 (defines ineffective assistance inquiry)
- Hill v. State, 291 Ga. 160 (prejudice must be substantial, not just conceivable)
- Dulcio v. State, 292 Ga. 645 (appellate deference to trial court factual findings)
- Simpson v. State, 277 Ga. 356 (scope of cross-examination is trial strategy; rarely ineffective)
- Waits v. State, 282 Ga. 1 (prejudice requirement for deficient performance)
- State v. Graham, 246 Ga. 341 (voir dire reporting not required in non-capital cases)