Miller v. State
325 Ga. App. 764
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Victim’s car broke down near a highway; Miller offered a ride, then drove to a secluded wooded area, physically assaulted her, and forced vaginal intercourse; victim identified Miller in a photo lineup and DNA from the victim’s sexual-assault kit matched Miller.
- Two prior similar-transaction allegations: each involved a man in a pickup offering a stranded woman a ride, taking her to a secluded location, and sexually assaulting her; both prior victims identified Miller in photo lineups and at trial.
- Miller did not testify; defense stipulated to the DNA match and presented limited evidence to impeach the severity of injuries in one prior incident.
- Miller was convicted of rape; he moved for a new trial asserting insufficiency of the evidence, erroneous admission of similar-transaction evidence, improper limitation of impeachment questioning, and several ineffective-assistance claims. The trial court denied the motion; Miller appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, upholding the conviction and rejecting all of Miller’s evidentiary and ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for rape | Victim’s testimony and other evidence were inconsistent and insufficient | Victim’s testimony, photo ID, and DNA supported conviction | Conviction affirmed; a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admission of similar-transaction evidence | Evidentiary showing that the prior offenses occurred / were by Miller was insufficient and admission was unduly prejudicial | Prior victims’ IDs, police interviews, and similarities supported admission for bent of mind, course of conduct, and corroboration; limiting instructions were given | Trial court did not abuse discretion; prior offenses met the preponderance standard and probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Limitation on impeachment questioning of prior-incident witness | Trial court improperly restricted cross-examining a witness about reasons/words in a fight that could impeach prior victim | Questions about fight motive/words would become impermissible character evidence and go beyond impeachment | No abuse of discretion; court properly limited scope to avoid general character attack |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple subclaims) | Counsel abandoned opening theory (sex-for-money), failed to present dead-docket evidence, and failed to object to alleged hearsay testimony | Tactical choices were presumed reasonable absent counsel’s testimony; objections would be futile or evidence was cumulative; defendant failed to show prejudice | Strickland not met: counsel’s choices were strategic or not patently unreasonable, and Miller failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Wynn v. State, 322 Ga. App. 66 (Ga. Ct. App.) (standard for viewing evidence post-conviction)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court) (reasonable-doubt sufficiency standard)
- Newton v. State, 313 Ga. App. 889 (Ga. Ct. App.) (standards for similar-transaction admissibility and balancing)
- Dean v. State, 321 Ga. App. 731 (Ga. Ct. App.) (preponderance standard for proving similar transactions)
- Bester v. State, 294 Ga. 195 (Ga. 2013) (admissibility of prior inconsistent statements to police as substantive evidence)
- Flemister v. State, 317 Ga. App. 749 (Ga. Ct. App.) (presumption that counsel’s choices are strategic; standard for ineffective-assistance review)