Miller v. State
295 Ga. 769
| Ga. | 2014Background:
- Victim Melissa Rushing lived with appellant Gregory Miller; on Aug. 6–7, 2008 she was assaulted in Miller’s apartment, later found bound and burned on a roadside.
- Witnesses (Meredith, Williams, and Zellner) testified Miller assaulted Rushing, forced helpers to clean and assist in disposing of the body, and then burned the body; physical and forensic evidence supported blunt force trauma, strangulation/smothering, and burning.
- Miller was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (vacated after malice conviction), and concealment of a death; jury convicted and trial court sentenced life plus 10 years consecutively.
- On appeal Miller challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including counsel’s handling of Miller’s testimony due to ethical concerns about perjury), and (3) certain trial rulings (failure to give curative instructions sua sponte; denial of mistrial after witness’s incomplete remark).
- The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed credibility issues deferentially, assessed Strickland claims, and examined the trial court’s discretionary rulings on curative instruction/mistrial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence was vague/conflicting; key witnesses were accomplices who lied, so conviction unsupported under Jackson v. Virginia | Credibility and conflicts are jury matters; evidence (witnesses, forensics, physical acts) supports convictions | Evidence sufficient; jury rationally could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Ineffective assistance — witness preparation/calls | Counsel failed to investigate or call witnesses and rarely met with Miller | Counsel testified he investigated, strategically declined harmful witnesses; Miller produced no evidence identifying omitted witnesses or their expected testimony | No deficient performance shown; strategic decisions presumptively reasonable |
| Ineffective assistance — handling of Miller’s testimony (perjury/ethical conflict) | Counsel should have withdrawn or mistrial granted rather than permit narrative testimony, creating ineffective assistance | Counsel reasonably sought to avoid presenting known/suspected perjury; permitting narrative testimony after warnings is acceptable; withdrawal/mistrial not necessarily available or required | No Strickland prejudice shown; counsel’s handling to avoid violating ethical duty was permissible (Nix governs) |
| Trial rulings — references to incarceration and incomplete witness remark | Passing references to Miller’s incarceration and an interrupted remark implied prior bad acts; court erred in not sua sponte giving curative instructions or granting mistrial | References were brief/passing; error waived absent objection; court gave curative instruction for incomplete remark; no reversible error | No reversible error: objection waiver rules and curative instruction suffice; incomplete remark did not establish prior bad acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 442 U.S. 307 (sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑pronged ineffective assistance test)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (counsel not ineffective for refusing to present known or suspected perjury)
- Hampton v. State, 272 Ga. 284 (credibility and evidentiary conflicts are for the factfinder)
- Barge v. State, 294 Ga. 567 (review of sufficiency viewed favorably to verdict)
- Kelly v. State, 270 Ga. 523 (accomplice testimony and coercion considerations)
- Jones v. State, 235 Ga. 103 (accomplices may corroborate each other)
- Skipper v. State, 314 Ga. App. 870 (appellate discussion on accomplice corroboration)
- Washington v. State, 294 Ga. 560 (trial strategy and witness decisions)
- Coggins v. State, 275 Ga. 479 (presumption counsel’s conduct reasonable)
- Bryant v. State, 293 Ga. 754 (no ineffectiveness for failing to call cumulative expert)
- Wesley v. State, 286 Ga. 355 (same principle on experts)
- Bunnell v. State, 292 Ga. 253 (curative instructions adequate for inadvertent references to prior convictions)
- Martin v. State, 281 Ga. 778 (failure to object waives appellate review)
- Hamilton v. State, 274 Ga. 582 (trial court not required to give unrequested curative instruction)
- Lawler v. State, 276 Ga. 229 (issue moot where statement/evidence not admitted)