Aikens v. State, 297 Ga. 229

On May 3, 2007, Maurice Aikens, Edward Wallace, and Ladasha Eison conspired to rob a bus-stop victim, 17-year-old Kyle Moore; Wallace pointed a gun, Aikens assisted, and Wallace shot and killed Moore.
Aikens kept Moore’s cell phone and later sold it; Eison (the lookout) later implicated the trio to police and testified (with immunity). Ballistics matched a 9mm from Wallace’s bedroom to the murder weapon.
Aikens and Wallace were jointly tried in Fulton County; jury convicted both of malice murder, armed robbery, related firearm offenses, and other counts; sentences included life terms.
Aikens appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of evidence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, (2) trial-court error in answering a jury question about the definition of possession, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record, addressed each claim, and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Aikens' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful-possession-by-convicted-felon	Aikens lacked control of Wallace’s gun; therefore no possession	Co-conspirator’s foreseeable acts are attributable; Aikens constructively possessed the gun	Affirmed — conspiracy support sufficed for constructive possession
Court’s response to jury question about “within arm’s reach” language	Response was vague and may have led jury to convict based on proximity	Initial jury instructions were correct; response merely told jurors to apply given law	No plain error; no substantial-rights prejudice shown
Ineffective assistance: permitting admission of non-redacted exhibit showing other charges	Counsel should have stipulated to the predicate felony or redacted exhibit	Admission limited by jury instruction; prosecutor did not emphasize other charges; overwhelming evidence of guilt	No prejudice shown under Strickland; claim fails
Ineffective assistance: failing to object to testimony referencing drugs and threats	Counsel should have objected to drug-allusion and witness testimony about threats/assaults	The drug remark was indirect and arguably beneficial; threats/beatings were relevant to intimidation and investigation	No deficient performance or, if deficient, no prejudice; claim fails

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test: performance and prejudice)
Murray v. State, 309 Ga. App. 828 (constructive possession via co-conspirator conduct)
Davis v. State, 287 Ga. App. 783 (attributing co-conspirator acts for possession)
Moses v. State, 265 Ga. App. 203 (same)
Redding v. State, 296 Ga. 471 (plain-error standard for jury-charge responses)
Poole v. State, 291 Ga. 848 (limiting instruction for prior-conviction evidence)
Perera v. State, 295 Ga. 880 (no deficient performance when counsel fails to object to admissible evidence)
Sterling v. State, 267 Ga. 209 (relevant evidence admissible even if it incidentally puts character in issue)