McLAUGHLIN v. THE STATE
338 Ga. App. 1
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Kimberly McLaughlin was convicted by a jury in Cobb County of aggravated assault (and battery) after a January 2012 stabbing of her then-boyfriend Jeffrey Kovanda; she asserted justification (self-defense) at trial.
- The couple had a documented history of domestic violence (incidents in Jan. 2011 and Oct. 2011), for which McLaughlin had pleaded guilty or been placed on probation.
- At trial the State introduced jailhouse phone calls in which McLaughlin apologized, accepted blame, and professed love for Kovanda; the State also emphasized she had not sought protective orders or left the relationship.
- Trial counsel recognized at a pretrial hearing that McLaughlin likely suffered from battered person syndrome (BPS) and that BPS evidence (expert testimony) would bolster the justification defense, but did not seek a continuance or withdraw a speedy-trial demand to obtain an expert.
- At the new-trial hearing, forensic psychologist Dr. Kevin Richards testified McLaughlin suffered from BPS and would have so testified at trial; trial counsel admitted he tried to qualify a police detective as an expert during trial but had no BPS expert testimony.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding counsel’s failure to seek a continuance to obtain BPS expert evidence was objectively unreasonable and prejudiced McLaughlin.
Issues
| Issue | McLaughlin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to seek a continuance to obtain BPS expert testimony was deficient performance | Counsel should have withdrawn the speedy-trial demand or moved for continuance to obtain crucial BPS expert evidence supporting justification | Implied that counsel’s choices were reasonable tactics and there was no procedural guarantee a continuance would be granted | Counsel’s failure was objectively unreasonable (deficient); ignorance of law/procedure and failure to investigate BPS was not a reasonable strategic choice |
| Whether the absence of BPS expert testimony prejudiced the defense | Lack of expert left jury with uncontextualized admissions and deprived defendant of a BPS jury instruction, creating a reasonable probability of a different outcome | The court might have denied a continuance; trial evidence and impeachment still supported convictions | Prejudice shown: reasonable probability that BPS evidence could have affected the verdict (new trial warranted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (performance judged by prevailing professional norms)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s duty to investigate; strategic choices after thorough investigation are protected)
- Smith v. State, 268 Ga. 196 (1997) (BPS admissible to show reasonableness of belief in imminence for self-defense; BPS is not a separate defense)
- Bishop v. State, 271 Ga. 291 (1999) (prima facie BPS-based justification requires expert opinion plus independent historical facts)
- Fedak v. State, 304 Ga. App. 580 (2010) (counsel’s failure to investigate/present available defense evidence can be deficient performance)