Johnson v. State, 296 Ga. 504

Around 3:30 a.m. on April 2, 2004, Craig Porter and his girlfriend Tiana Smith drove to buy crack; after being sold bad drugs earlier they intended to take drugs without paying.
They encountered Brent Johnson, who led them to an apartment complex; Brent went inside and later Johnson (appellant) emerged with a gun and sold Smith a package of crack.
As Porter attempted to drive away, Johnson shot into the car; Porter died from a gunshot to the back of the head and had an additional non‑fatal shot to his upper back. Smith survived and later identified Johnson in a photographic lineup.
Investigators recovered shell casings near the apartment, drugs from the apartment frequented by Johnson and others, and witnesses (including an apartment occupant, Owens, and Brent) connected Johnson to the shooting.
Johnson was indicted and convicted of malice murder and related offenses; he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, improper expert testimony, an unduly suggestive photographic lineup, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.

Issue	Johnson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Physical evidence was lacking; eyewitnesses were inconsistent; other suspects existed	Witness testimony (Smith, Brent, Owens) and circumstantial evidence sufficed; credibility is for the jury	Affirmed: evidence sufficient when viewed in favor of verdict (Jackson standard)
Medical examiner testimony	ME opined beyond expertise about bullet rebound and seat/headrest gap	ME was qualified on ballistics‑related matters and testified to facts and hypothetical supported by photos	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the testimony
Photographic lineup admissibility	Lineup was unduly suggestive and should have been suppressed	Record lacks the pretrial‑hearing transcript; no record evidence of suggestiveness; photo array was similar‑looking	Affirmed: no basis shown to overturn suppression ruling; jury to weigh ID credibility
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel failed to object to two prosecutor comments in closing	Prosecutor’s remarks were permissible inferences from the evidence; objections were not required and no prejudice shown	Affirmed: counsel not shown deficient or prejudicial under Strickland

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Manuel v. State, 289 Ga. 383 (single witness sufficiency and corroboration weight)
Williams v. State, 279 Ga. 731 (trial court discretion on expert testimony)
Gibson v. State, 283 Ga. 377 (factors distinguishing suggestiveness from reliability of identification)