302 Ga. 211
Ga.2017Background
- On June 6, 2006, Andray Faust shot and killed Marcellous Brown during a meeting to sell shoes; Faust admitted the shooting but claimed he acted in self‑defense during a purported drug transaction and defense of another (Milton).
- Eyewitnesses Drema Chamblee and Kevin Milton testified that Faust approached with a rifle, Brown drew a revolver, Milton was grabbed, and Faust shot Brown; neither firearm was recovered.
- Faust fled to Florida two days later and was arrested in Tampa; at trial he acknowledged killing Brown but claimed Brown fired first during a drug sale gone wrong.
- Indicted on multiple counts (including felony murder, aggravated assault, firearm offenses), Faust was convicted on retrial of felony murder (during aggravated assault) and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; aggravated assault merged for sentencing.
- Posttrial, Faust appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence, exclusion of methamphetamine-possession evidence, certain jury instructions (including failure to charge on a method of simple assault and inclusion of a robbery/forcible felony charge), and alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the trial court’s rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Faust's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder and firearm possession | Evidence was "he said/she said"; Faust claimed self‑defense and defense of another | Eyewitness testimony supported conviction; credibility and justification questions for jury | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; jury could reject Faust’s self‑defense claim |
| Exclusion of evidence that Brown possessed methamphetamine | Meth possession would support Faust’s drug‑deal theory and rebut robbery motive | Possession lacked factual nexus to Faust’s justification theory and would impermissibly impugn character | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion harmless given other drug evidence and strong eyewitness testimony |
| Jury instructions — omission of simple‑assault definition and inclusion of robbery as forcible felony | Failure to charge on second method of simple assault and overbroad robbery instruction prejudiced defense | Defense counsel agreed to the robbery charge and opposed one simple‑assault theory at conference; any error invited/waived | Claims waived/invited by defense; no plain error shown in any event |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple grounds: demonstrative exhibits, hearsay/detective testimony, closing argument objections) | Counsel erred by not objecting to demonstrative guns, hearsay/bolstering, and certain prosecutorial remarks | Counsel’s choices were reasonable; many objections would have been meritless or trial strategy; no reasonable probability of different outcome | No Strickland relief: counsel not deficient and/or no prejudice; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Mosley v. State, 300 Ga. 521 (credibility and justification issues for jury)
- Cain v. State, 300 Ga. 614 (jury not required to credit defendant’s self‑defense testimony)
- McCoy v. State, 273 Ga. 568 (admissibility of demonstrative firearms when actual weapons not recovered)
- Walker v. State, 294 Ga. 851 (victim character evidence requires factual nexus)