Graves v. State
306 Ga. 485
| Ga. | 2019Background
- Justin Graves was tried in Cobb County for the robbery and fatal shooting of taxi driver Michael Bemus on Aug. 6, 2015, and convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault (intent to rob), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; felony-murder counts were vacated and sentences imposed (life without parole plus consecutive terms).
- Surveillance video shows Graves riding in Bemus’s taxi, the taxi later crashing after Bemus was shot, and Graves (wearing a black sweatshirt over a long white T‑shirt) exiting the taxi alone and returning to his motel to pay for his room.
- Police executed a search warrant of Graves’s motel room hours later and found a sweatshirt testing positive for gunshot residue; a bloodstain on Graves’s white T‑shirt contained both Bemus’s and Graves’s DNA.
- Graves’s trial testimony shifted from multiple earlier statements to police; at trial he claimed an unidentified third person (who allegedly shouted “I’m GD insane”) shot Bemus after a racial argument and that Graves was only a passenger or witness.
- The jury rejected Graves’s alternative theory and convicted; Graves appealed claiming (1) insufficient evidence to exclude the third‑party shooter hypothesis, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to obtain two expert witnesses and to ensure voir dire was recorded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Graves) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions | Evidence does not exclude a reasonable hypothesis that an unidentified stranger shot Bemus | Surveillance, GSR on sweatshirt, mixed DNA, inconsistent statements support conviction | Convictions supported; jury reasonably rejected third‑party shooter theory |
| Motive/robbery theory sufficiency | No evidence Graves needed money; substantial cash found on victim | Circumstantial evidence (Graves returned to motel to pay, GSR, video) supports robbery motive and guilt | Jury could infer robbery motive; evidence sufficient |
| Ineffective assistance — gang expert ("G.D. Insane") | Counsel should have called an expert to explain the exclamation as gang‑related, undermining State’s case | No showing counsel knew of gang or that expert would be admissible or change outcome | No deficient performance or prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance — autism/behavior expert & unrecorded voir dire | Counsel should have presented autism expert to explain demeanor and ensured full voir dire transcript | No expert proffered at new‑trial hearing or diagnosis shown; no allegation of specific voir dire error or prejudice | Failure to call autism expert not shown deficient or prejudicial; lack of voir dire transcript not shown to cause prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Merritt v. State, 285 Ga. 778 (explains that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Outler v. State, 305 Ga. 701 (application of Jackson standard to circumstantial evidence)
- Carter v. State, 276 Ga. 322 (jury’s role in assessing circumstantial evidence and alternative hypotheses)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (ineffective assistance context for investigative and expert failures)
- Parker v. State, 305 Ga. 136 (prejudice standard for omitted expert testimony)
- Crowder v. State, 294 Ga. 167 (failure to proffer expert testimony at hearing defeats claim of prejudice)
- Domingues v. State, 277 Ga. 373 (no ineffective assistance for failure to transcribe voir dire absent asserted prejudice)
- McFarlane v. State, 291 Ga. 345 (recording voir dire is required only in death‑penalty cases)