Bryant v. State
296 Ga. 456
| Ga. | 2015Background
- On Oct. 18, 2006 Jurell Williams was shot and killed in an apartment parking lot; Ray Bryant and Paul Mathis were involved and fled in a red car. Witnesses identified both by nicknames and later from photo lineups.
- Evidence showed Mathis struck Williams with a gun, fired shots while Williams was on the ground, and Bryant approached, searched Williams, and drove Mathis away. Williams had earlier reported threats from “Ray‑Ray” and “Payday.”
- Bryant was tried with Mathis; jury convicted Bryant of felony murder (not malice), aggravated assault, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during a felony; he was sentenced to life plus additional concurrent and consecutive terms.
- Bryant appealed claiming: (1) insufficient evidence that he shared Mathis’s intent to shoot, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel based on several alleged trial counsel failures.
- Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed (including prior appellate decision affirming Mathis’s convictions) and affirmed Bryant’s convictions and rejected the ineffective‑assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Bryant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Bryant as a party to the crimes | Bryant argued evidence did not establish he shared Mathis’s intent to shoot Williams | Evidence of threats, driving to scene, approaching during assault, searching victim, and fleeing together supports party liability | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, jury could infer shared criminal intent; presence/companionship/conduct before and after supported conviction |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to witness testimony about threats and protective custody | Counsel should have objected because threats were not shown to be linked to Bryant (improper character evidence) | Testimony was admissible to explain witness’s reluctance/inconsistent statements; trial court would likely admit it | Denied — no deficiency because objection not required; testimony was relevant to witness behavior |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to similar transaction evidence from victim’s ex‑girlfriend | Counsel should have objected under Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3(B) | Issue was not raised below (trial court never ruled); claim was different on appeal and thus waived | Denied — claim waived for failure to raise below; nothing to review |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to ballistics testimony changing caliber opinion | Counsel should have objected for lack of discovery notice under discovery statutes/precedent | Examiner’s testimony arose on cross‑examination by co‑defendant, not State’s case‑in‑chief; discovery statute didn’t require notice; no showing of prejudice or State bad faith | Denied — no prejudice shown and no discovery violation that would require exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. State, 291 Ga. 268 (affirming co‑defendant’s convictions) (evidence and party liability context)
- Edenfield v. State, 293 Ga. 370 (standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency review)
- Powell v. State, 291 Ga. 743 (defining party liability and when presence/companionship supports inference of shared intent)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Foster v. State, 294 Ga. 383 (admission of threats to explain witness reluctance or inconsistent statements)
- Yancey v. State, 292 Ga. 812 (ineffective assistance standard applied to failure to object to testimony)
- Nichols v. State, 285 Ga. 784 (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Durden v. State, 187 Ga. App. 154 (discussing discovery of scientific reports—context for discovery argument)
- Conyers v. State, 260 Ga. 506 (construction of discovery statutes regarding scientific reports)