Bryant v. State
298 Ga. 703
Ga.2016Background
- On Feb. 5, 2005, a fight at a sports bar led to Vonterry Bryant confronting Edward Hawkins and Allen Cook outside; Bryant chased and shot Hawkins (who died) and struck Cook. Bryant was later identified as the shooter in photographic lineups and at trial.
- A jury convicted Bryant of malice murder, aggravated assault, and firearm-possession counts; he received life for malice murder plus concurrent and consecutive firearm sentences; felony-murder was vacated as a matter of law.
- At trial defense counsel learned that two State witnesses (Cook and Carmichael) had outstanding warrants that the defense investigator discovered in jail; the prosecution had not run background checks and had not disclosed the warrants.
- The trial court denied a mistrial but permitted extensive cross-examination of the witnesses and investigators about the warrants; defense argued this was a Brady/Giglio violation and sought mistrial.
- Defense also challenged the photographic lineups as unduly suggestive and later raised ineffective-assistance claims for failing to discover warrants pretrial, for missing discovery pages, and for allegedly inadequate alibi investigation.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed: evidence was sufficient; no Brady/Giglio violation because defense obtained the warrants and mitigation at trial was allowed; lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive; ineffective-assistance claims failed.
Issues
| Issue | Bryant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Giglio nondisclosure of witness warrants | Prosecution suppressed impeachment evidence (warrants) that would have affected credibility and trial outcome | Defense obtained the warrants independently; prosecution unaware; trial court remedied by allowing full cross-examination | No Brady/Giglio violation; mistrial not required |
| Suggestive photographic lineup | Lineups were impermissibly suggestive and led to misidentification | Lineups were procedurally proper; witnesses were not influenced and made unequivocal IDs | Lineup not unduly suggestive; no reversible error |
| Sufficiency of evidence | (implicit) convictions unreliable without proper disclosures/IDs | Evidence (eyewitness IDs, admissions, flight) supports convictions | Evidence was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to discover warrants pretrial, failed to obtain missing discovery pages, and inadequately investigated alibi witnesses | Counsel’s actions fell within strategic choices; no prejudice shown | Strickland test not met; ineffective-assistance claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence and prosecutor disclosure obligations)
- Danforth v. Chapman, 297 Ga. 29 (2015) (outlines Brady test elements in Georgia)
- Williams v. State, 290 Ga. 533 (2012) (analysis of suggestive identification procedures)
- Pruitt v. State, 282 Ga. 30 (2007) (standard for ineffective-assistance review)
- Wright v. State, 291 Ga. 869 (2012) (no need to reach both Strickland prongs if one fails)
- Andrews v. State, 293 Ga. 701 (2013) (counsel’s strategic decisions re: witness presentation reviewed for reasonableness)