Leeks v. State, 303 Ga. 104

Victim Zerit Haileslasie was fatally shot during an armed robbery at a Fulton County convenience store; David Leeks was indicted on murder and related charges and convicted at trial.
Eyewitnesses Mildred Stephens and Bryan Howse identified Leeks in photo lineups and in court; both testified they had a clear view of the shooter in the well-lit store.
Defense highlighted initial police focus on another suspect (Octavia Smith), pointing out that Moore and an officer first picked Smith, and argued that prior exposure to Smith’s photo tainted subsequent IDs of Leeks.
Leeks’s mother (co-defendant Regina Roberts) suggested her son was the shooter to police and testified she saw Leeks taking money from the booth after the shooting; cell‑tower data placed Leeks’s phone near the store at the time.
Trial counsel did not object to two jury instructions: (1) the party-to-a-crime instruction, and (2) an identification-reliability instruction stating jurors may consider a witness’s level of certainty.
On appeal Leeks argued plain error as to both instructions; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding the party instruction proper and any Brodes error regarding certainty harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Leeks)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Trial court erred by instructing on "party to a crime" theory not charged in indictment	Instruction expanded the indictment and allowed conviction on uncharged theory	Indictment need not plead party liability; slight evidence supported party theory	Affirmed — instruction proper; slight evidence supported party liability
Trial court erred by telling jury they may consider an ID witness’s level of certainty	Brodes disapproved the pattern instruction; its use was plain error harming Leeks	Any error was harmless given strong corroborating evidence and other correct instructions	Affirmed — Brodes error harmless; not plain error
Whether failure to object permits ineffective assistance claim	Trial counsel’s failure to object rendered assistance ineffective	Harmless-error finding defeats prejudice prong; objecting to party instruction would be futile	Denied — ineffective-assistance claim meritless because errors harmless or non‑erroneous
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction	(Not challenged)	Evidence sufficient to support convictions	Affirmed — independent Jackson v. Virginia review found evidence sufficient

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
Lebis v. State, 302 Ga. 750 (party-to-a-crime need not be alleged in indictment)
Butler v. State, 273 Ga. 380 (same principle on party liability)
State v. Johnson, 269 Ga. 370 (same principle on party liability)
State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1 (trial courts may give lesser-included instructions sua sponte)
Baptiste v. State, 288 Ga. 653 (slight evidence suffices to authorize a requested jury charge)
State v. Jackson, 294 Ga. 9 (party-to-a-crime inference from presence and conduct)
Harrell v. State, 253 Ga. 474 (examples of evidence supporting party-to-a-crime conviction)
Brodes v. State, 279 Ga. 435 (disapproved pattern instruction permitting consideration of witness certainty)
Hicks v. State, 287 Ga. 260 (Brodes error may be harmless depending on evidence and charge as a whole)
Woodruff v. State, 281 Ga. 235 (Brodes error harmless where strong corroboration and proper burden instructions given)
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (plain-error test articulation)
Martin v. State, 298 Ga. 259 (harmless‑error test equivalence to prejudice in ineffective‑assistance claims)
Ventura v. State, 284 Ga. 215 (futile objections do not establish ineffective assistance)