Green v. State
299 Ga. 337
Ga.2016Background
- Steven James Green was convicted of malice murder, burglary, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon for the fatal shooting of Anthony Augustus and assault of Shyrome Marshall; convictions were previously upheld on sufficiency and juror impartiality issues, and the case was remanded to consider ineffective-assistance claims.
- Trial evidence: Marshall and Augustus returned to a forced-open apartment; Green struck Marshall, demanded money with a gun, Augustus distracted Green and was fatally shot, and Green fled the scene.
- At trial the State questioned Green’s girlfriend, Rachael Anderson, about an alleged conversation with John Manning that would impeach her; Manning was not called to testify and Anderson denied the conversation.
- While Marshall was testifying the trial court, off the jury record, found him in criminal contempt for untruthful testimony and sentenced him to 20 days; the court declined to allow that contempt finding to be used to inform the jury.
- Defense counsel also simultaneously represented Anderson (who faced unrelated drug charges); Green claims this created an actual conflict that impaired counsel’s performance, including decisions not to call or impeach Anderson with her recorded interview or prosecution status.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the amended motion for new trial and denied relief; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Failure to move for mistrial or strike questions about Manning when Manning did not testify | Counsel was ineffective for not moving for mistrial or striking prejudicial questions suggesting Manning would impeach Anderson | Court gave curative instruction; statements were not evidence and no bad-faith production issue shown | No prejudice shown; counsel not ineffective because jury instructions cured any potential harm |
| 2) Failure to preserve and use court's contempt finding to impeach Marshall | Counsel ineffective for not objecting when court refused to let jury know it found Marshall in contempt for lying | Informing jury of court’s contempt finding would invade jury role and violate OCGA §17-8-57; remedy would be improper | Trial court correctly barred impeachment by revealing contempt; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| 3) Conflict of interest from counsel simultaneously representing Anderson | Green argues dual representation violated Rule 1.7 and produced an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance | Any conflict did not adversely affect performance; decisions not to call or impeach Anderson were strategic and would be same absent dual representation | No actual conflict shown; Cuyler standard unmet; counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable |
| 4) Failure to impeach Anderson with her recorded statement or drug prosecution | Green contends counsel should have used Anderson’s prior interview or drug charges to impeach her testimony | Counsel testified impeachment would not help Green and could undermine strategy; cell-phone and surveillance alibi evidence was preferable | No reasonable probability of different outcome; decision was strategic, not conflict-driven; no ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (to prove conflict of interest when no timely objection, defendant must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel's performance)
- Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782 (1985) (Georgia adoption of Strickland; strong presumption of reasonable professional judgment)
- Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75 (2003) (appellate review accepts trial court factual findings but independently applies legal principles)
- Wilkins v. State, 291 Ga. 483 (2012) (mistrial appropriate only when essential to preserve right to fair trial; trial court discretion)
- Jones v. State, 290 Ga. 576 (2012) (curative instructions can obviate need for mistrial when prejudicial matter is placed before jury)
- Hawes v. State, 266 Ga. 731 (1996) (discussion of whether criminal contempt constitutes a crime involving dishonesty for impeachment; court assumed without deciding)
- Barrett v. State, 292 Ga. 160 (2012) (defendant asserting conflict must show it significantly and adversely affected representation)