Faulkner v. State, 295 Ga. 321

Faulkner was convicted in Houston County, Georgia, of murder and related offenses for the fatal shooting of Emmanuel Dawson.
Evidence showed Faulkner previously bought crack from Dawson, stole a girlfriend’s pistol, and Dawson boarded Faulkner’s van where Dawson was shot in the head with a .22.
Dawson’s body was dumped on a dirt road; Faulkner later claimed another person, identified as Dwayne Crew, acted in the crime; DNA on Faulkner’s jeans matched Dawson’s blood.
Faulkner testified and identified Crew; Crew denied involvement and no physical evidence confirmed Crew’s presence in the van.
Faulkner moved for a new trial; the trial court denied, and Faulkner appealed raising multiple trial-error and post-trial issues.
The court affirmed, addressing challenges to sufficiency of evidence, venue, excluded testimony, newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance, and jury instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Faulkner argues the evidence is legally insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	State asserts the jury could rely on credibility determinations and DNA/forensic and eyewitness testimony.	Evidence legally sufficient to support convictions.
Venue for the murder	State failed to prove venue under OCGA 17-2-2 (c) and (e) (no jury charge on these).	Venue was proven because death occurred in a vehicle traveling through the state and Dawson’s body was found in Houston County; lack of charge does not defeat proof.	Venue proven; failure to charge did not require new trial.
Exclusion of lay opinion about Crew's intent	Exclusion of officer’s testimony about Crew’s motive to be placed with Faulkner was error.	Trial court properly exercised discretion; lay opinion on motive was improper.	No abuse of discretion; exclusion upheld.
New trial based on newly discovered evidence	Fields’ testimony would corroborate Crew’s involvement and Faulkner’s trial testimony.	New evidence would not likely produce a different verdict; evidence not sufficiently specific.	Court did not abuse discretion; no probable different verdict.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel should have objected to the State’s closing argument as misstatement of law.	Arguments were legally permissible; failure to object was reasonable strategy.	No ineffective assistance; objections would not have altered outcome.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard requires proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Lanham v. State, 291 Ga. 625 (Ga. 2012) (venue-charge deficiencies do not automatically require a new trial)
Brinson v. State, 288 Ga. 435 (Ga. 2011) (new-trial standard for newly discovered evidence; discretion of the trial court)
Ingram v. State, 276 Ga. 223 (Ga. 2003) (new evidence limitations; time frame relevance)
Hester v. State, 282 Ga. 239 (Ga. 2007) (ineffective assistance framework and appellate deference)