Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312

Background

On Sept. 20, 2010, Christopher Lynn was shot and killed behind an apartment complex; Inee Lyman was indicted and later convicted for malice murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
The shooting followed a check-cashing scheme in which Zykia Adams (who pled to voluntary manslaughter and testified against Lyman) participated; Adams contacted someone after receiving less money than expected, which led to the confrontation.
Eyewitness Joycelyn Patrick identified Lyman as the shooter; Quinton Hightower previously told an investigator that Lyman admitted the killing, though he recanted parts of that statement at trial.
At trial the court instructed that a single witness’s testimony may suffice; the court did not give a specific accomplice-corroboration instruction and Lyman did not request one.
Lyman argued on appeal that omission of an accomplice-corroboration instruction was plain error and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in several respects (including failing to request such an instruction).
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed convictions, holding the instruction omission was legal error under intervening precedent but not plain error affecting the outcome; ineffective-assistance claims also failed.

Issues

Issue	Lyman's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether accomplice-corroboration instruction was required	Jury should have been instructed that accomplice testimony (Adams) requires corroboration	At time of trial controlling precedent allowed omission when accomplice testimony was corroborated; jury got general single-witness instruction	Failure to give instruction is error under later precedent (Hamm), but omission was not plain error because other independent corroboration existed; conviction affirmed
Plain-error standard timing	Omission was clear or obvious error warranting reversal	Whether error is "clear or obvious" is judged at time of appeal; reversal requires showing probable effect on outcome	Court applies plain-error test noting clarity judged at appeal; error was clear under Hamm but Lyman failed to show it probably affected outcome
Ineffective assistance for not requesting accomplice instruction	Counsel deficient for not requesting instruction; prejudiced outcome	Trial counsel acted reasonably under law existing at trial; no reasonable probability of different result	Counsel not ineffective on this ground because prevailing law at trial did not require the request and evidence corroborated accomplice testimony
Other ineffective-assistance claims (consenting to limiting-instruction withdrawal; exhibit allowed to go out with jury; cumulative error)	These trial decisions harmed defense and cumulatively denied effective assistance	Challenged acts were reasonable tactical decisions or harmless; record does not show prejudice	Court rejects each claim for lack of prejudice or record support; cumulative-error claim fails because alleged errors would not probably change outcome

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
Hamm v. State, 294 Ga. 791 (accomplice-corroboration instruction required when State relies in part on other evidence connecting defendant)
Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680 (plain error test articulated)
Simmons v. State, 299 Ga. 370 (plain error application)
Jones v. State, 299 Ga. 40 (appellant must show error probably affected outcome)
Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (plain-error clarity judged at time of appellate review)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (federal plain-error precedent)
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (OCGA §17-8-58(b) adopts federal plain-error standard)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error framework)
Stanbury v. State, 299 Ga. 125 (application of Hamm; failure to give instruction reversible where only accomplice identified defendant)
Williams v. Rudolph, 298 Ga. 86 (reasonableness of counsel judged at time of trial)
Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782 (Strickland standard cited for ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75 (appellate review of ineffective-assistance findings)
Fisher v. State, 299 Ga. 478 (comparison of ineffective-assistance claims)
Hanes v. State, 294 Ga. 521 (prejudice required to show counsel error affected outcome)
Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. 98 (appellate record requirements to review claimed errors)
Dockery v. State, 287 Ga. 275 (harmlessness of non-testimonial exhibits)
Barrett v. State, 292 Ga. 160 (cumulative-error analysis)
Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (sentencing/merger principles)
Campbell v. State, 292 Ga. 766 (jury-charge considered as whole)
Bulloch v. State, 293 Ga. 179 (cumulative-effect rule)
Crayton v. State, 298 Ga. 792 (plain-error standards discussion)