Durham v. State
292 Ga. 239
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Durham was convicted of malice murder and related offenses for the shooting death of George McCrary.
- Key eyewitness Janice Ware testified she saw Durham shoot McCrary, steal a necklace, and flee on foot.
- Durham was later seen getting into a green taxi with his girlfriend and their baby, and he fled after a motel stay.
- Medical examiner confirmed a single gunshot wound; a single 9mm cartridge case was found near the victim.
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supported a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Durham challenged hearsay testimony, requested circumstantial-evidence instructions, and ineffective-assistance claims on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain error for hearsay evidence | Durham argues officer hearsay bolstered Ware's credibility. | State contends waiver and no reversible error under current standards. | No reversible error; waiver and plain-error review do not apply. |
| Circumstantial-evidence charge | Durham sought a standard instruction requiring exclusion of other reasonable hypotheses. | State contends failure to object means only plain-error review applies. | Trial court erred in not giving Durham's requested instruction, but error was harmless given direct eyewitness testimony. |
| Ineffective assistance: hearsay objection strategy | Counsel failed to object to hearsay, allegedly prejudicing Durham. | Counsel's strategy and record show no deficient performance. | No ineffective-assistance violation; strategy and record support counsel's conduct. |
| Ineffective assistance: pre-trial interview, disclosures | Counsel failed to investigate or disclose prior suspension and to interview eyewitness. | Disclosures and interview attempts were reasonable under Strickland. | No prejudice shown; combined conduct did not change outcome. |
| Appellate-review waiver and out-of-time appeal | Counsel's failure to timely file affected appellate rights. | Out-of-time appeal grant permitted appellate review; no prejudice from counsel's conduct. | No prejudice; appellate review properly obtained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (sufficiency standard for jury verdicts)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (confrontation-right limits on hearsay testimony)
- Davis v. State, 285 Ga. 176 (Ga. 2009) (circumstantial-evidence charge requirements)
- Mims v. State, 264 Ga. 271 (Ga. 1994) (circumstantial-evidence instructions guidance)
- Williams v. State, 291 Ga. 501 (Ga. 2012) (plain-error review scope and application)
- Brooks v. State, 281 Ga. 514 (Ga. 2007) (plain-error review and evidentiary issues)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (ineffectiveness and ethical standards not automatically prejudicial)
- Rafi v. State, 289 Ga. 716 (Ga. 2011) (pretrial interviews and witness strategy considerations)
- Smith v. State, 275 Ga. 326 (Ga. 2002) (trial strategy and objections in evidentiary rulings)
- In the Matter of Cannington, 266 Ga. 605 (Ga. 1996) (disciplinary history and relevance to counsel)
- State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (Ga. 2011) (plain-error framework for conviction-reversal analysis)