Moore v. State, 307 Ga. 290

Background

Victim Mandi Kaiser was found dead in her locked apartment on Feb. 18, 2015, with extensive blunt‑force injuries, multiple fractured ribs, signs of strangulation, and a bite mark containing Moore’s DNA. Medical examiner concluded death by combined strangulation and blunt force trauma.
Moore lived with Kaiser; surveillance, phone records, and his recorded statement contradicted his account that he left her alive and spent the night elsewhere. He did not testify at trial.
A Chatham County jury convicted Moore of malice murder and related family‑violence counts in Jan. 2017; trial court sentenced him to life without parole.
Before trial the State gave Rule 404(b) notice and the court ruled various prior‑acts evidence admissible; at trial the State presented testimony from ex‑girlfriend Lisa Bedgood describing prior choking, biting, and battery incidents.
Other contested rulings included admission of 17 post‑incision autopsy photographs (Rule 403), denial of a requested mutual‑combat jury instruction, a prosecutor comment in closing about defense counsel and cocaine, and ineffective‑assistance claims for counsel’s failure to object or move for a mistrial to certain remarks and testimony.

Issues

Issue	Moore’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Admission of prior‑acts evidence under OCGA § 24‑4‑404(b)	Prior‑acts were cumulative and unfairly prejudicial; intent was already clear from injuries	Evidence admissible to prove intent and pattern of controlling violence; trial court limited jury’s use	If admission was error, it was harmless given overwhelming evidence; conviction affirmed
Admission of 17 autopsy photos (OCGA § 24‑4‑403)	Photos were duplicative and unduly prejudicial	Photos relevant to show nature, location, and number of injuries; aided medical examiner’s testimony	No abuse of discretion; photographs admissible
Request for mutual‑combat jury instruction	Evidence of argument, scratches, and mutual injuries supported mutual combat instruction	Evidence showed possible victim attack (self‑defense) but not mutual combat—insufficient to warrant the instruction	Trial court properly denied mutual‑combat charge; voluntary manslaughter instruction was given where appropriate
Prosecutor’s closing/opening remarks and counsel’s failure to object (including Bedgood redirect)	Prosecutor improperly suggested defense counsel acted sinisterly and referenced cocaine; counsel ineffective for not moving mistrial or objecting to extraneous prior‑act testimony	Prosecutor has wide latitude; remark accurately referenced court’s pretrial ruling; some comments waived by failure to object; Bedgood redirect was opened by defense cross and objection would have been strategic	No reversible error in court’s handling of remarks; counsel not ineffective—failures were either meritless or strategic; any error harmless

Key Cases Cited

Castillo‑Velasquez v. State, 305 Ga. 644 (2019) (articulates three‑part Rule 404(b) test: relevance to issue other than character, probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and sufficient proof by preponderance that defendant committed other act)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes legal sufficiency standard for conviction review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Pike v. State, 302 Ga. 795 (2018) (autopsy photographs are admissible to show nature and location of injuries and corroborate circumstances of killing)
Russell v. State, 303 Ga. 478 (2018) (defines mutual combat and outlines when mutual‑combat instruction is warranted)
Pulley v. State, 291 Ga. 330 (2012) (distinguishes evidence supporting self‑defense from evidence supporting mutual combat)
Strother v. State, 305 Ga. 838 (2019) (defense cross‑examination may open the door to otherwise inadmissible extrinsic evidence on redirect)
Williams v. State, 302 Ga. 147 (2017) (other‑acts evidentiary errors may be harmless where evidence of guilt is overwhelming)