312 Ga. 619
Ga.2021Background
- Lane was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault and armed robbery), multiple aggravated-assault and robbery counts, false imprisonment, and a weapons charge arising from the November 6, 2002 shooting and robbery at a Krystal restaurant that killed assistant manager Danielle Simpson.
- At trial (Feb. 2004) Lane was acquitted of malice murder but convicted of felony murder (aggravated assault predicate), aggravated assault and false imprisonment of Austin Young, armed robbery of Simpson, and possession of a firearm during a felony; concurrent and consecutive sentences were imposed and many counts merged or vacated for sentencing.
- Key evidence: Young identified Lane in a photo lineup; autopsy showed shotgun wound caused death; witnesses placed Lane at the scene wearing a plaid jacket; Champion (Lane’s friend) testified he accompanied Lane that morning and said he had offered to take a polygraph; Lane admitted being at the restaurant but blamed Champion.
- Post-conviction proceedings: Lane filed a timely motion for new trial and amended it years later; trial court denied relief in 2020 and Lane appealed raising (1) admission of Champion’s polygraph-offer testimony, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to impeach Champion with prior convictions and for not objecting to prosecutor’s closing argument, and (3) cumulative error.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia held the polygraph testimony issue was unpreserved under the old Evidence Code, rejected Lane’s ineffective-assistance claims (no deficient performance shown and no prejudice), and declined relief on cumulative-prejudice grounds; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony that Champion offered to take a polygraph | Lane: testimony improperly bolstered Champion’s credibility and should have been excluded | State: testimony was admissible; no timely specific objection at trial | Unpreserved; under the pre-2013 Evidence Code no appellate review because objection was not properly made |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to impeach Champion with prior convictions | Lane: counsel should have introduced numerous prior felony convictions to impeach Champion | State: counsel cross-examined Champion about incarceration, felony status, informant work, and emphasized credibility attacks in closing; omission was reasonable trial strategy | No deficient performance shown; strategic choices reasonable and no relief warranted |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to prosecutor’s closing argument referencing polygraph offer | Lane: counsel should have objected because prosecutor’s comment improperly bolstered witness | State: even if omission was deficient, overwhelming evidence and jury instruction that arguments are not evidence make any error nonprejudicial | Assumed deficiency but no prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Cumulative prejudice / new trial | Lane: combined errors deprived him of fair trial and warrant a new trial | State: no errors properly before court and no cumulative harmful effect of proven errors | No cumulative prejudice; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyatt v. State, 298 Ga. 742 (2016) (old Evidence Code bars plain-error review for trials before 2013 when objections are not timely preserved)
- Durham v. State, 292 Ga. 239 (2012) (off-the-record objections do not preserve appellate review under old Evidence Code)
- Mosley v. State, 298 Ga. 849 (2016) (noting preservation rules under prior Evidence Code)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Green v. State, 291 Ga. 579 (2012) (application of Strickland in Georgia)
- Burrell v. State, 301 Ga. 21 (2017) (no remand required where record shows ineffective-assistance claim cannot succeed)
- Shaw v. State, 292 Ga. 871 (2013) (objective reasonableness of counsel not limited to counsel’s subjective explanation)
- Romer v. State, 293 Ga. 339 (2013) (extent of cross-examination is trial strategy; failure to impeach with prior convictions can be reasonable)
- Davis v. State, 306 Ga. 140 (2019) (prejudice inquiry for failure to object to prosecutorial argument)
- State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10 (2020) (cumulative prejudice framework referenced)
- Debelbot v. State, 305 Ga. 534 (2019) (assessing cumulative effect only for matters determined to be error)
- Sullivan v. State, 301 Ga. 37 (2017) (evaluate cumulative effects of proven errors, not non-errors)