King v. State
316 Ga. 611
Ga.2023Background
- On March 28, 2018 Michael Brooks was shot multiple times on Glenwood Road; police recovered a .40‑caliber handgun from Rico Jabar King’s pickup. King was later arrested and, after a January 2020 jury trial, convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; sentenced to life without parole plus five years consecutively.
- King gave a post‑arrest interview admitting the shooting and making statements reflecting psychosis; he did not testify at trial.
- King’s defense was insanity/psychosis, attributed at trial to phentermine; defense called three mental‑health experts and lay witnesses, while the State rebutted with a pharmacology/toxicology expert who disputed that prescribed phentermine would likely cause prolonged psychosis.
- Trial testimony and argument addressed voluntary intoxication and King’s prior statements about drug and alcohol use; defense elicited much of that testimony and argued lack of voluntary intoxication in closing.
- King moved for a new trial on the general grounds and later raised claims on appeal: (1) erroneous denial of new trial; (2) improper witness testimony and closing on voluntary intoxication; (3) admission of character evidence about substance use; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | King’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court failed to exercise thirteenth‑juror discretion on general‑grounds new‑trial motion | Court should have granted new trial in interest of justice because verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Trial court properly reviewed credibility and weight and denied new trial; its exercise of discretion is not reviewable here | Denial affirmed; trial court expressly acted as thirteenth juror and its decision stands |
| Admission of testimony and State closing about voluntary intoxication; failure to give clarifying instruction | Testimony and prosecutor misstated law; jury should have been instructed on narrow exception where intoxication causes permanent brain alteration | Defense elicited testimony about voluntary intoxication; no contemporaneous objections to closing; exception not argued or supported by evidence | Most claims waived because defense elicited testimony or failed to object; plain‑error review fails—no reasonable probability outcome affected |
| Admission of testimony about King’s alcohol/illegal drug use (character evidence) | Such testimony was improper character evidence under OCGA § 24‑4‑404 | Defense itself opened the door by eliciting and relying on those records and testimony; no objection at trial | Waived by affirmative introduction; plain‑error review fails |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to certify medical records; not objecting to substance testimony; not objecting to alleged golden‑rule language; not objecting/requesting instruction on voluntary intoxication) | Counsel’s failures were objectively unreasonable and prejudiced outcome | Many objections would have been meritless or were not shown to be prejudicial; some claims waived or barred; trial strategy explanations given | IAC claims fail: no prejudice shown; some claims waived; golden‑rule objection would have been meritless, so no deficient performance; overall convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridley v. State, 315 Ga. 452 (trial court must exercise thirteenth‑juror discretion but appellate review of that exercise is limited)
- Strother v. State, 305 Ga. 838 (trial court’s denial of general‑grounds new trial upheld where court noted sufficiency and weight of evidence)
- Walker v. State, 312 Ga. 232 (failure to object to closing argument waives appellate review)
- Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324 (closing argument waiver and plain‑error principles)
- Griffin v. State, 309 Ga. 860 (affirmative waiver of evidentiary objections where defense strategically introduced topic)
- Choisnet v. State, 295 Ga. 568 (plain‑error standard for instructional errors)
- Taylor v. State, 315 Ga. 630 (plain‑error four‑prong framework explained)
- Perez v. State, 309 Ga. 687 (narrow exception where voluntary intoxication resulting in permanent brain alteration may negate intent)
- Horton v. State, 258 Ga. 489 (discussing intoxication defenses)
- Guyse v. State, 286 Ga. 574 (intoxication and criminal responsibility principles)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test: deficiency and prejudice)
- Menefee v. State, 301 Ga. 505 (definition and limits of the golden‑rule prohibition in closing argument)
- Foreman v. State, 306 Ga. 567 (prejudice requirement for IAC; reasonable‑probability standard)
- Elkins v. State, 306 Ga. 351 (waiver of IAC claims not raised at motion for new trial)
- Munn v. State, 313 Ga. 716 (prejudice analysis in IAC context)
- Payne v. State, 314 Ga. 322 (cumulative errors and ineffective‑assistance analysis)
- Rucker v. State, 291 Ga. 134 (prosecutor’s argument about public safety not a golden‑rule violation)
- Sanders v. State, 290 Ga. 637 (broad prosecutorial statements about potential victims not golden‑rule violations)