Davis v. State, 302 Ga. 576

Background

On Jan. 16, 2013, Davis, White, Gibson, and Harris went to a tattoo shop intending to rob the occupants; shots were fired, Johnson was killed and Makanjoula wounded. Davis was identified at trial as the shooter.
Co-defendants had roles: Harris drove, Gibson acted as lookout/entry, Davis and White entered armed. Witnesses and co-defendant statements implicated Davis as the shooter.
Davis was indicted on multiple counts including malice murder, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession during commission of a felony; convicted on all counts and sentenced to life plus consecutive terms.
Trial: Davis presented an alibi via his mother and sister. On cross-examination the State questioned those alibi witnesses about prior family-altercation incidents and police interventions to impeach their credibility and show motive/bias.
The State also admitted a co-conspirator’s statement (White told Harris’s girlfriend that Davis was the shooter) under the co-conspirator exception, and a bystander’s tentative statement that Davis "looked familiar."
Davis raised evidentiary objections and an ineffective assistance claim on appeal; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding the cross-examination proper for impeachment, the co-conspirator statement admissible, no plain error in admitting the tentative identification, and no Strickland violation given the strong evidence of guilt.

Issues

Issue	Davis’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Admissibility of cross‑examination re: prior family altercations	Cross‑examining alibi witnesses about prior family incidents improperly put Davis’s character at issue and violated Rule 404(b) and Rule 403	Cross‑examination was proper impeachment to test alibi witnesses’ knowledge, bias, and fear of Davis; not offered to prove character	Court: Allowed cross‑examination; not Rule 404(b) other‑acts evidence but impeachment; no Rule 403 unfair‑prejudice error
Failure to give limiting instruction about prior altercations	Trial court should have given limiting instruction; omission is plain error	No plain error: defendant did not request instruction; evidence of guilt was strong so omission did not affect outcome	Court: No plain error — Davis failed to show the omission probably affected the outcome
Admission of co‑conspirator statement (White to Harris’s girlfriend)	Statement was not during a conspiracy or concealment phase, so hearsay exception inapplicable	Statement admissible under co‑conspirator exception (in furtherance of conspiracy/concealment) and, if not, cumulative of other evidence	Court: Statement admissible under co‑conspirator exception; alternatively harmless/cumulative
Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple bases)	Counsel erred by (1) not objecting to impeachment evidence for lack of 404(b) notice, (2) failing to investigate alibi, (3) opening door to prior altercations, (4) not requesting limiting instruction — cumulatively prejudiced Davis	Counsel’s performance was reasonable given information provided; no reasonable probability of different outcome given strong evidence of guilt	Court: Strickland not satisfied — no deficient performance shown to have prejudiced the outcome

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance standard)
Rivers v. State, 296 Ga. 396 (permissible cross‑examination to show bias/fear of a defense witness)
Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (Rule 404(b) framework and Rule 403 balancing)
Grissom v. State, 296 Ga. 406 (conspiracy may be inferred from conduct; co‑conspirator statement admissibility)
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (plain error standard explained)
Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324 (plain error prejudice requirement — must show error probably affected outcome)
United States v. Holt, 777 F.3d 1234 (liberal standard for whether a statement is "in furtherance" of a conspiracy)