Baker v. State, 293 Ga. 811

On April 8, 2007, two separate armed home invasions occurred in Columbus, GA; victims were beaten and robbed, and two people (Isaias Bartolón and Marcelo Rivera) were killed by .22-caliber gunfire.
Investigators recovered a 7.62x39 mm shell casing at both scenes; ballistics tied those casings to an SKS rifle later found at co-defendant Jessie Willis’s home.
A knit cap recovered at one scene yielded two DNA profiles; one matched Appellant Raymond S. Baker.
Baker gave a Miranda-waived statement admitting participation as a getaway driver but later was identified by co-defendant Cassinova Houston as the rifleman in both invasions; Houston had pled guilty to many counts and testified for the State in exchange for a sentencing recommendation.
Baker was convicted of multiple counts including two malice murder convictions and numerous robberies and assaults; he received consecutive and concurrent life and term sentences.
On appeal Baker argued (1) the trial court and prosecutor impeded a “thorough and sifting” cross-examination of Houston, and (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (improper cross-examination, and remark in opening that Baker was in jail).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	Evidence insufficient to support convictions	Evidence (DNA, ballistics, witness ID, confession) supports convictions	Affirmed — evidence sufficient under Jackson standard
Cross-examination limitation	Trial court/prosecutor repeatedly interrupted cross-exam of Houston, denying Sixth Amendment right	Court allowed broad cross-examination, interruptions were to clarify questions and avoid confusion	Denied — no abuse of discretion; confrontation right not violated
Ineffective assistance — cross-exam strategy	Counsel failed to adequately cross-examine Houston and a detective	Appellant must show specific deficient acts and resulting prejudice; none shown	Denied — appellant failed to show prejudice from counsel’s conduct
Ineffective assistance — comment about jail in opening	Counsel’s remark that appellant was in jail prejudiced jury	Jury already knew of arrest and prior conviction; court instructed opening is not evidence	Denied — no reasonable probability of different outcome

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffectiveness standard: performance and prejudice)
Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (2009) (jury resolves witness credibility and evidentiary conflicts)
State v. Vogleson, 275 Ga. 637 (2002) (Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine)
Moon v. State, 288 Ga. 508 (2011) (trial court may limit confusing or misleading cross-examination)
Hampton v. State, 289 Ga. 621 (2011) (trial court’s discretion in regulating cross-examination)
Zamora v. State, 291 Ga. 512 (2012) (defendant must show more than speculation to prove prejudice from counsel’s errors)
Watkins v. State, 289 Ga. 359 (2011) (quoting Strickland standard)