Grant v. State
305 Ga. 170
Ga.2019Background
- On Oct. 1, 2011, Travis Shivers was shot and killed; witnesses placed Marcus Grant at the scene and one eyewitness saw him shoot the victim. Grant was seen angry in a hat and dark hoodie; items found near the victim (a Mountain Dew can and a Dallas Cowboys hat) matched items Grant acknowledged losing.
- Grant voluntarily went to police the next morning, waived rights, and made statements placing him at the scene; he had earlier been overheard making a racial threat about a man a week before the shooting.
- Indicted Feb. 2, 2012 for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (the latter was bifurcated at trial). At the Nov. 2012 trial the jury convicted Grant of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony; acquitted on the felon-in-possession charge.
- Grant moved for a new trial (amended 2016); trial court denied the motion in Aug. 2017. He appealed, raising claims including: improper jury array composition, exclusion of a racially charged pre-shooting statement, admission of AFIS/fingerprint testimony, and multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
- The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting each claim and holding the trial evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Grant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury-array fairness / fair cross-section | Array selection produced an array with 111 of 162 jurors marked "race undetermined," showing systematic exclusion or "discrimination by random process" that denied fair cross-section | No evidence of purposeful or systematic discrimination; burden is on Grant to prove exclusion | Denied — Grant failed to prove systematic or purposeful discrimination; claim fails |
| Admission of racially charged pre-shooting statement (motion in limine) | Statement was irrelevant and highly prejudicial; should be excluded | Statement was probative of motive/intent and relevant; any character impact was incidental | Denied — admission within trial court's discretion; relevant as motive/intent and not unduly prejudicial |
| AFIS/fingerprint testimony and motion for mistrial | Agent's general description of AFIS implied Grant was in database / had prior convictions; prejudicial and warranted mistrial | Testimony merely described investigatory procedure and did not link Grant to AFIS or prior convictions | Denied — no abuse of discretion; testimony was general procedure explanation and did not connect Grant to prior record |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple subclaims) | Counsel erred in several ways (motions strategy, failing to redact probation reference, allowing invocation-of-counsel clip, not objecting to hearsay, bolstering, not pursuing juror-prosecutor misconduct, allowing ultimate-issue testimony), cumulatively prejudiced trial | Counsel's conduct fell within reasonable strategic choices; where deficient performance assumed, Grant cannot show resulting prejudice under Strickland | Denied — most claimed acts were reasonable strategy; where deficiency assumed, Grant failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency standard) (court reviewed sufficiency under Jackson)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Forsyth County v. Martin, 279 Ga. 215 (Ga. 2005) (motion in limine standard)
- Hicks v. State, 256 Ga. 715 (Ga. 1987) (probative value vs. unfair prejudice under old Evidence Code)
- State v. Wilkins, 302 Ga. 156 (Ga. 2017) (abuse of discretion review for denial of motion in limine)
- Pyatt v. State, 298 Ga. 742 (Ga. 2016) (trial transcript as primary evidence of counsel's strategy)
- Brown v. State, 302 Ga. 454 (Ga. 2017) (improper witness bolstering and credibility issues)