McKoy v. State, 303 Ga. 327

Raymond McKoy was convicted of malice murder for shooting Lauren Hudson, his estranged wife’s girlfriend, after an altercation at the wife’s apartment; one shot to the back of Hudson’s head was fatal.
Defense theory was self-defense; witnesses testified McKoy said Hudson had pulled a gun and defense presented character and forensic testimony supporting possible non-fatal initial shots and movement of the victim.
Police recovered McKoy’s .40-caliber Glock from his father’s truck and shell casings matching the gun at the scene; McKoy fled and was apprehended with a knife.
The State sought to use journal entries found in McKoy’s car to impeach his testimony; McKoy argued the journals were seized illegally and moved in limine to exclude them.
After testifying on direct, McKoy refused to return to the stand for cross-examination once the court ruled the journals would be admissible for impeachment; the court struck his direct testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it.
McKoy appealed, arguing (1) the in limine ruling admitting journals was error and (2) striking his testimony violated his rights; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of journals (illegally seized)	Journals were illegally seized and should be excluded	Illegally seized evidence may be used for impeachment; journals impeached testimony	Court did not decide admissibility on merits because journals were never admitted; error not preserved due to defendant’s refusal to testify further (Luce rule)
Preservation under Luce (defendant declined to testify on cross)	Pretrial in limine ruling preserved error; appellate review appropriate	Defendant’s refusal to testify prevented factual context; Luce requires defendant to testify to preserve claim	Luce and Georgia precedent apply; without cross-examined testimony or actual admission, review is speculative and claim not preserved
Striking testimony after refusal to submit to cross	Striking testimony deprived McKoy of right to present a defense/due process	Once a defendant takes the stand he may be cross-examined; refusal to submit justifies striking his testimony	Court held striking all direct testimony was proper and constitutional where defendant refused cross-examination; due process satisfied by court warnings and counsel consultation
Sufficiency of evidence / self-defense claim	Evidence supported self-defense; conviction should be overturned	Jury free to reject self-defense; evidence supports malice murder conviction	Court reviewed record and held evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction; jury properly rejected self-defense

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (precluding appellate review of in limine impeachment rulings when defendant elects not to testify)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
Hogsed v. State, 287 Ga. 255 (Ga.) (illegally seized writings may be used to impeach defendant)
Warbington v. State, 316 Ga. App. 614 (Ga. App.) (applying Luce in Georgia; no review where defendant declined to testify)
Hubbard v. State, 173 Ga. App. 127 (Ga. App.) (if witness refuses cross, testimony on same subject may be stricken)
Soto v. State, 285 Ga. 367 (Ga.) (proper remedy is to strike testimony when witness refuses to continue testifying)