Horne v. the State
333 Ga. App. 353
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Horne was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and battery; conviction followed a jury trial and denial of his new-trial motion.
- He appeals alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Victim and Horne had a long-term relationship; incidents occurred August 11 and August 18, 2008 with extensive injuries described.
- The victim recanted at trial; the State presented IPV expert testimony about recantation behavior.
- Defense theories included consent and consensual rough sex; several other charged offenses were nolle prossed after a hung jury.
- Trial conduct included an in limine motion to exclude the IPV expert; the appellate court analyzes Strickland and defers to trial strategy; ultimately the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance re expert testimony on IPV | Horne argues trial counsel failed to effectively handle the IPV expert. | State contends expert testimony was admissible and handling was a strategic choice. | No reversal; decisions within trial strategy; no deficient performance shown. |
| Ineffective assistance re challenging the expert's battered-person syndrome testimony | Counsel should have challenged the syndrome interpretation. | Strategy to rely on other evidence and credibility; no prejudice shown. | No reversal; not reasonably Likely outcome different. |
| Ineffective assistance re using the consent defense | Defense consistently argued consent for several offenses. | Strategy supported by favorable outcomes on some charges; not patently unreasonable. | No reversal; strategy reasonable under circumstances. |
| Ineffective assistance re prosecutorial argument | Prosecutor's remarks were improper and should have been objected to. | Context negates prejudice; trial court instructed correctly. | No reversal; improper remarks did not undermine fairness given context. |
| Ineffective assistance re failure to file a special demurrer | Demurrer could have narrowed or altered indictment focus. | Failure to demur generally not reversible; could re-indict later. | No reversal; no material impact on defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance)
- Bridges v. State, 286 Ga. 535 (Ga. 2010) (strong presumption of reasonable trial strategy; deference to counsel)
- Parrish v. State, 237 Ga. App. 274 (Ga. App. 1999) (IPV expert testimony admissible to explain victim behavior)
- Housing Auth. of the City of Macon v. Younis, 279 Ga. App. 599 (Ga. App. 2006) (motion in limine should be granted only if evidence is inadmissible)
- Watson v. State, 278 Ga. 763 (Ga. 2004) (battered person syndrome recognized; expert testimony admissible)
- Lowery v. State, 264 Ga. App. 655 (Ga. App. 2003) (jury credibility determinations reserved to jury)
- Meeks v. State, 281 Ga. App. 334 (Ga. App. 2006) (prior inconsistent statements may be substantive evidence)
- McCrickard v. State, 249 Ga. App. 715 (Ga. App. 2001) (indicts and prior difficulties; focus on indictment allegations)
- Leonard v. State, 279 Ga. App. 192 (Ga. App. 2006) (failure to request lesser included offense not patently unreasonable)
- Feagin v. State, 317 Ga. App. 543 (Ga. App. 2012) (severity of disfigurement may satisfy 'serious disfigurement')