Davis v. State
326 Ga. App. 778
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Joseph Davis was convicted by a Bibb County jury of burglary, aggravated assault (with intent to rape), and aggravated sexual battery; DNA from semen collected at the scene matched Davis (or an identical twin).
- Victim testified an intruder entered her bedroom ~4:00 a.m., choked and threatened her with death, prevented her seeing his face, attempted intercourse (ejaculation without penetration) and digitally penetrated her vagina; she denied consent or prior acquaintance.
- Victim found the back door open with a broken glass pane after the attacker left; landlord testified Davis lived nearby and sometimes worked in the building.
- Davis testified he and the victim had consumed methamphetamine and engaged in consensual foreplay, claiming he left after ejaculating and denied nonconsensual acts or nonconsensual entry.
- Jury resolved conflicts in favor of the State; trial court denied Davis’s motion for new trial and ineffective-assistance claims, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual battery | State: evidence (victim testimony, broken door, DNA) proves nonconsensual entry, intent to rape, and nonconsensual penetration | Davis: victim consented; he was known to her and entry/sexual activity was consensual | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, jury could find nonconsensual entry, threats, choking, and digital penetration; statutes satisfied |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to call uncle/roommate witness | Davis: uncle would have shown prior acquaintance and supported consent/entry defense | State: counsel spoke with witness who refused involvement; counsel called other family witness; tactical choice | Affirmed — failure to call witness was reasonable trial tactic; defendant did not prove prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance — no curative instruction after incarceration remark | Davis: counsel should have sought curative instruction after witness mentioned Davis had been jailed | Counsel objected and moved for mistrial; then declined curative instruction to avoid emphasizing comment | Affirmed — strategic decision not to highlight the remark fell within reasonable professional judgment |
| Ineffective assistance — eliciting prior convictions on direct exam | Davis: introducing prior convictions prejudiced jury | Counsel chose to elicit convictions to control narrative and avoid surprise on cross; argue it ‘‘softened the blow’’ | Affirmed — objectively reasonable trial strategy; no Strickland prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard review)
- Rankin v. State, 278 Ga. 704 (appellate review standard and deference to jury credibility findings)
- Mattox v. State, 305 Ga. App. 600 (elements analysis for related offenses)
- Coleman v. State, 284 Ga. App. 811 (burglary/assault precedent)
- Whitehill v. State, 247 Ga. App. 267 (sexual offense sufficiency principles)
- Mangham v. State, 234 Ga. App. 567 (aggravated sexual battery precedent)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
- Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75 (appellate approach to Strickland analysis)
- Miller v. State, 285 Ga. 285 (prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
- Dyer v. State, 295 Ga. App. 495 (tactical decisions generally not ineffective assistance)
- Reynolds v. State, 267 Ga. App. 148 (failure to present unavailable witness at new-trial hearing undermines claim)
- Kitchens v. State, 289 Ga. 242 (strategic choices about curative instructions)
- Contreras v. State, 314 Ga. App. 825 (admitting prior convictions as trial strategy)
- Collins v. State, 276 Ga. 726 (putting character in issue supports eliciting convictions on direct)