Faust v. State
302 Ga. 211
| Ga. | 2017Background
- On June 6, 2006, Andray Faust shot and killed Marcellous Brown during an apparent transaction; Faust admitted shooting Brown but claimed self‑defense during a drug sale gone wrong. Two eyewitnesses (Drema Chamblee and Kevin Milton) testified Faust ran up with a rifle and shot Brown while Brown had Faust in a headlock. Neither weapon used was recovered.
- Faust was indicted on multiple counts, tried in 2009 (mistrial on some counts), retried in 2010, convicted of felony murder (based on aggravated assault) and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and sentenced to life plus five years consecutive. Aggravated assault merged into the felony murder for sentencing.
- Faust appealed after denial of an amended motion for new trial, challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) exclusion of evidence that Brown possessed methamphetamine, (3) alleged omissions and inclusions in jury instructions (including simple assault and robbery/forcible felony), and (4) multiple ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel claims.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency claim under Jackson v. Virginia standards and deferred to the jury’s credibility determinations, finding eyewitness testimony adequate to sustain the convictions.
- The trial court admitted ecstasy evidence but excluded proof that 50 methamphetamine tablets were found on Brown; the Court held exclusion was within the trial court’s discretion because Faust failed to show a factual nexus between possession and his defensive theory and any error was harmless.
- Several charge issues were deemed invited waivers or not plain error because defense counsel had agreed or expressly declined certain charges at the charge conference; ineffective‑assistance claims failed because objections would have been meritless or counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for felony murder and firearm possession | Faust: testimony conflicts and State failed to prove robbery motive; self‑defense supported | State: eyewitnesses Chamblee and Milton proved assault and murder; motive not required | Affirmed — eyewitness testimony sufficient; credibility for jury to resolve; Jackson standard applied |
| Exclusion of evidence that victim possessed methamphetamine | Faust: meth possession would support his drug‑deal/self‑defense theory and impeach victim’s innocence | State/trial court: no factual nexus shown between meth possession and Faust’s defense; would mainly impugn character | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; admission speculative and any error harmless given other drug evidence and strong eyewitness proof |
| Jury instructions — omission of full simple assault definition and inclusion of robbery as forcible felony | Faust: omission/inclusion prejudiced his defense; plain error review | State: defense invited/waived objections at charge conference; instructions tracked statutory language and were not plainly erroneous | Affirmed — errors invited/waived or not plain error; jury properly instructed on material law and burden of proof |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to exhibits, detective testimony, and portions of closing argument | Faust: counsel should have objected to demonstrative guns, hearsay/bolstering by detective, and prosecutor’s allegedly improper remarks | State: objections would have lacked merit or counsel pursued reasonable strategy; errors were either harmless or non‑existent | Affirmed — Strickland not met; counsel’s failures were not deficient or prejudicial; many objections would be meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
- Mosley v. State, 300 Ga. 521 (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Cain v. State, 300 Ga. 614 (conflicts in evidence and justification are for jury)
- Walker v. State, 294 Ga. 851 (limitations on relevancy of victim character evidence)
- Moore v. State, 295 Ga. 709 (review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Grant v. State, 298 Ga. 835 (motive not required to sustain murder conviction)