Moore v. State
288 Ga. 187
| Ga. | 2010Background
- Appellant Moore was convicted of malice murder and related offenses for the shooting death of Roddy Cunningham during a drug transaction setup.
- Co-indictee Washington and co-indictee Davis coordinated drug deals; Washington recruited Moore and Cunningham to meet at a hotel bar and then an apartment, where Moore shot Cunningham.
- A witness saw the shooting in a rearview mirror; no eyewitness identified Moore as shooter; Washington later identified Moore after an arrest warrant was issued.
- Norwood, a friend of Washington, testified that Moore called her after the shooting to ask about Washington, linking Moore to the crime.
- Moore fled in Cunningham’s car, was later apprehended after a period of evasion and a home invasion incident, and was indicted for multiple counts; trial occurred in March 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of accomplice evidence | Washington was an accomplice; her testimony alone could establish guilt. | Without intent to commit non-drug offenses, Washington may not be an accomplice; need corroboration. | Sufficiency sustained; corroboration adequate to convict. |
| Effectiveness of counsel re co-indictees | Counsel should have interviewed Davis and Washington pre-trial to bolster defense. | Lack of interviews did not prejudice given cross-examination and impeachment strategies. | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown. |
| Admission of similar transaction evidence | Similar prior offenses show intent and state of mind relevant to charges. | Prior acts must be sufficiently similar and properly limited; some probative value contested. | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence admitted for purpose-limited probative value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 278 Ga. 235 (2004) (accomplice testimony requires corroboration for certain crimes)
- Castell v. State, 250 Ga. 776 (1983) (extrinsic corroboration may validate accomplice testimony)
- Simpson v. State, 278 Ga. 336 (2004) (confirming corroboration through related evidence)
- Roebuck v. State, 277 Ga. 200 (2003) (fingerprints corroborated accomplice testimony)
- Phillips v. State, 287 Ga. 560 (2010) (similarity-centered analysis in admissibility of similar transactions)
- Hall v. State, 287 Ga. 755 (2010) (emphasizes focus on similarities for similar transaction evidence)
- Pareja v. State, 286 Ga. 117 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of similar transactions)
- Abdullah v. State, 284 Ga. 399 (2008) (identity vs. intent considerations in similar transaction evidence)
- Barnes v. State, 287 Ga. 423 (2010) (bent of mind and course of conduct evidence in drug conspiracy cases)
- Baines v. State, 276 Ga. 117 (2003) (sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice testimony)
- Jackson v. United States, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (reasonable doubt standard; standard for sufficiency review)