Bryant v. State
301 Ga. 617
Ga.2017Background
- In July 2008 a 17‑year‑old Avery L. Bryant was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm during a felony, and possession of a pistol by a person under 18; after a March 2010 jury trial he was convicted and sentenced to life plus five years.
- Eyewitness testimony (three teens who were with Bryant) placed him at the victim’s car and one eyewitness testified Bryant "just start[ed] shooting." The victim died of a .40‑caliber gunshot to the chest; .40‑caliber shell casings and a .40 bullet were found at the scene; the gun was never recovered.
- Police executed a search of Bryant’s home pursuant to a search warrant and recovered, among other things, an empty box for .40‑caliber ammunition from under Bryant’s bed; most other items seized were later suppressed as exceeding the warrant’s scope, but the empty .40 box was admitted at trial.
- Trial counsel did not move to suppress the box on the ground the warrant failed to satisfy the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement, and at trial counsel said she had "no objection" to admission, which the State argues waived preservation.
- On appeal Bryant argued ineffective assistance for failure to litigate the Fourth Amendment particularity claim; the Georgia Supreme Court agreed counsel was deficient and that exclusion of the ammunition box would likely have changed the outcome, so it reversed the convictions and permitted retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bryant) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence based on a warrant that lacked particularity | Counsel failed to litigate a meritorious Fourth Amendment particularity claim | Warrant was adequate because the affiant’s oral testimony to the magistrate identified items to be seized; any suppression claim was waived by counsel’s statement of "no objection" at trial | Counsel was ineffective: the warrant on its face failed particularity; counsel should have pursued suppression |
| Whether the search warrant met the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement | Warrant did not list items to be seized; therefore invalid on its face | Affiant’s oral testimony before the magistrate supplied particularity; supporting affidavit/ testimony supplemented the warrant | Warrant was fatally deficient for lack of particularity; search treated as warrantless and presumptively unreasonable |
| Whether admission of the empty .40‑caliber box was harmless error | The box was a critical piece of physical evidence linking Bryant to the crime; its admission likely affected the verdict | The box was not likely dispositive; other evidence supported conviction | Exclusion of the box would have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice established under Strickland |
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after reversal for ineffective assistance based on suppressed evidence | Retrial would be barred only if evidence was sufficient to preclude retrial | State contends retrial permissible | Because evidence was sufficient to support conviction, double jeopardy does not bar retrial; reversal is for procedural error requiring retrial if State chooses |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (ineffective assistance claims when Fourth Amendment error alleged require showing the suppression claim is meritorious and that its omission was prejudicial)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant must particularly describe items to be seized; a warrant that describes no items is constitutionally deficient)
- United States v. Pratt, 438 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (particularity requirement looks to the warrant itself, not merely supporting affidavit or oral testimony)
- Kennebrew v. State, 299 Ga. 864 (reversal where prosecutor emphasized unconstitutionally obtained evidence and other evidence was not overwhelming)
- Cobb v. State, 283 Ga. 388 (prejudice found where key physical evidence improperly admitted and eyewitness credibility was contested)
- Dunn v. State, 291 Ga. 551 (discussion of Strickland standard in Georgia)