MOORE v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
311 Ga. 506
Ga.2021Background
- On November 12, 2014, Moore drove Milbourne and Robinson to a planned marijuana buy; Robinson left a phone in the seller’s (Milton’s) car.
- The three later located Milton at an apartment complex; Milbourne and Moore approached with guns drawn. Moore held Milton at gunpoint in the car while Milbourne went upstairs.
- Milbourne forced entry into Apartment 1707, fought with and fatally shot Jamie Moore; Moore fired into the LeSabre, grazing Milton. The three fled in Moore’s Camry, led police on a high‑speed chase, crashed, and were captured; a gun and stolen clothing were recovered.
- Robinson pled to reduced charges and testified for the State at the 2016 trial. Moore and Milbourne were convicted of malice murder and related offenses and sentenced to life without parole (felony‑murder counts later vacated by operation of law).
- On appeal Moore argued insufficiency of evidence as to responsibility for Jamie’s death and an ineffective‑assistance/conflict claim; Milbourne challenged the jury’s receipt of a detective’s PowerPoint (continuing‑witness rule), the court’s grant to media to film closing arguments, and alleged ineffective assistance by motion‑for‑new‑trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Moore shared responsibility for Jamie’s murder | Moore: He never entered the apartment and did not shoot Jamie; evidence insufficient to show he was a party to the murder | State: Moore’s presence, role holding Milton at gunpoint, shooting at Milton, and flight/concealment support party/conspiracy liability | Affirmed — viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, evidence was sufficient to infer shared criminal intent or a conspiracy making Jamie’s death foreseeable |
| Ineffective assistance due to conflict (Moore’s trial counsel previously represented witness Robinson) | Moore: Counsel’s prior representation of Robinson created an actual conflict that adversely affected representation | State: Counsel denied recollection of prior representation, cross‑examined Robinson vigorously, court inquired and found no real conflict; Moore failed to show adverse effect | Affirmed — Moore did not show an actual conflict or any adverse effect on counsel’s performance |
| Continuing‑witness rule (PowerPoint summary of cell‑phone evidence sent to jury) (Milbourne) | Milbourne: Sending the detective’s PowerPoint to the jury violated the continuing‑witness rule | State: Continuing‑witness rule applies to written testimony read into the record; summaries of admitted records may be sent out with jury | Affirmed — continuing‑witness rule not violated; summaries of admitted cell‑phone records may go out with jury |
| Court allowed media to film closing arguments over objection (Milbourne) | Milbourne: Court erred by granting media request without an on‑the‑record consideration of OCGA §15‑1‑10.1 factors | State: No authority requires the court to recite findings on the record; courts are presumed to have made necessary findings absent contrary record | Affirmed — no reversible error; presumption that court considered relevant factors applies |
| Ineffective assistance of motion‑for‑new‑trial counsel (Milbourne) | Milbourne: New‑trial counsel failed to pursue trial‑counsel ineffectiveness claims, so new‑trial counsel was ineffective | State: Ineffectiveness of trial counsel must be raised at earliest practicable time (motion for new trial); Milbourne had new counsel at that stage who did not pursue such claims, so they were waived | Affirmed — claim is procedurally barred as a recast of waived trial‑counsel ineffectiveness; remedy is habeas, if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for constitutional sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (conflict‑of‑interest showing where counsel represents conflicting interests)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (proof required when conflict rooted in former‑client obligations)
- Frazier v. State, 308 Ga. 450 (2020) (Georgia discussion of party liability and reviewing sufficiency under Jackson)
- McLeod v. State, 297 Ga. 99 (2015) (conspiracy and foreseeability of collateral violent acts)
- State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646 (2010) (noting dangerous nature of armed robbery and drug dealing in party liability analysis)
- Everritt v. State, 277 Ga. 457 (2003) (natural and probable consequences/foreseeability doctrine)
- Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268 (2014) (conspiracy liability where violent consequences are foreseeable)
- Hill v. State, 269 Ga. 23 (1998) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim based on prior representation of a witness when no adverse effect shown)
- Keller v. State, 308 Ga. 492 (2020) (explaining continuing‑witness rule scope)
- Wilkins v. State, 291 Ga. 483 (2012) (holding summaries of admitted cell‑phone records may be sent out with jury)
- Rainwater v. State, 300 Ga. 800 (2017) (continuing‑witness rule unaffected by Evidence Code changes)
- McKenzie v. State, 300 Ga. App. 469 (2009) (investigator‑created timeline of phone activity did not trigger continuing‑witness rule)
- Williams v. State, 306 Ga. 674 (2019) (presumption trial court made findings necessary to support ruling)
- Elkins v. State, 306 Ga. 351 (2019) (ineffectiveness claims must be raised at earliest practicable moment; cannot recast waived trial‑counsel claims on appeal)
- Robinson v. State, 306 Ga. 614 (2019) (procedural bar for improperly recast ineffectiveness claims)