Moore v. State
305 Ga. 251
Ga.2019Background
- On July 17, 2012, Raemon “Killer Ray” Moore was accused of fatally shooting Asiel Parker at West End Mall; eyewitnesses placed Moore at the scene and one testified she saw him fire a black pistol.
- Mall surveillance footage and stills were obtained; witnesses identified Moore from those recordings and from a police photo lineup (one witness later recanted at trial).
- Police located two YouTube rap videos showing Moore wearing gang-identifying clothing; an Atlanta Police Gang Intelligence detective used those to identify Moore and opined the shooting was gang-related.
- Moore was indicted on multiple counts including malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; convictions were entered for malice murder and possession during commission of a felony; gang-activity conviction was later set aside by the trial court.
- On appeal Moore challenged admission/authentication of the YouTube and surveillance videos and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Moore's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission/authentication of YouTube rap videos | Videos were unauthenticated and thus inadmissible; their admission prejudiced him on all convictions | Detective laid foundation; even if error, gang evidence was not necessary to murder/firearm convictions and any error was harmless | Any possible error admitting YouTube videos was harmless as overwhelming eyewitness and surveillance ID supported convictions |
| Admission/authentication of mall surveillance videos | Videos were not properly authenticated (raised on appeal) | Eyewitnesses who viewed the recordings testified they accurately depicted the scene and movements, supplying authentication | Surveillance videos and stills were sufficiently authenticated; no plain error shown |
| Preservation and plain-error review | Objection not preserved for appellate review | For surveillance videos, no contemporaneous objection; review only for plain error | Moore failed to show any error, so plain-error review does not aid him |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel’s failure to object to video evidence was deficient and prejudicial | Counsel did object to YouTube videos; surveillance videos were properly authenticated so objection would have been meritless | Strickland not met: counsel not deficient and no prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for convictions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (effective-assistance two-prong test)
- Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (jury resolves credibility and conflicts)
- Bolling v. State, 300 Ga. 694 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Brown v. State, 300 Ga. 446 (harmless-error doctrine under Georgia Evidence Code)
- Romer v. State, 293 Ga. 339 (objective-reasonableness standard for counsel performance)
- Duvall v. State, 290 Ga. 475 (no deficiency for failing to make meritless objection)
- Sowell v. State, 327 Ga. App. 532 (requirements for videotape authentication)