Alexander v. State
319 Ga. App. 199
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Alexander had a tumultuous relationship with his girlfriend; she ended the relationship and he took her two cell phones to prevent leaving contact.
- He restrained her on a bed for about an hour, resulting in her attempting to retrieve phones and later being hit, scratched, and bleeding during arguments in a car and subdivision.
- He was charged with battery (two counts), simple battery (three counts), disorderly conduct, and criminal trespass, and was found guilty of all but one simple battery count.
- Alexander moved for a new trial asserting ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied the motion.
- The court applied Strickland v. Washington and independently reviewed the trial record to assess the claim for ineffective assistance.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding no ineffective assistance based on the four challenged trial-counsel decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defense counsel err in failing to investigate mental health? | Alexander contends counsel should have investigated mental health to aid trial and sentencing. | Counsel had no information of mental health and strategy did not require such evidence. | No deficiency; no reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not adequately preparing Alexander to testify? | Alexander argues lack of preparation harmed credibility on cross-examination. | Counsel pursued a reasonable self-defense strategy and prepared him given trial developments. | Not ineffective; strategy reasonable under the circumstances. |
| Did counsel err by not objecting to a witness mentioning a protective order (TPO)? | Reference to the TPO should have been objected to as prejudicial. | Mentioned to illuminate the relationship and motive; reasonable strategic decision. | Not deficient; admissible as part of relationship-based evidence and strategic choice. |
| Was trial counsel deficient for allowing leading/narrative testimony by the victim? | Victim’s narrative answers and leading questions harmed admissibility. | Testimony was not purely narrative and followed open-ended questions; no abuse of discretion. | Not deficient; narrative form approved in certain contexts; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 853 (Ga. 2004) (assistance standards and related considerations in Georgia)
- Reed v. State, 309 Ga. App. 183 (Ga. App. 2011) (evidence admissibility and post-difficulty considerations)
- Anglin v. State, 173 Ga. App. 648 (Ga. App. 1985) (court may permit leading questions in discretion; no automatic error)