Morris v. State, 303 Ga. 192

Background

On July 26, 2004, Willie Morris shot Fabian Miller after confronting him about $200 Morris believed Miller stole; Miller died shortly thereafter. Morris initially told police he meant to shoot Miller in the leg and did not claim self-defense until surrendering; several witnesses disputed that Miller reached for a gun.
Morris was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (aggravated assault), aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; a jury found him guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault (merged), and firearm possession; malice murder was not proven.
Morris sought to develop a justification (self-defense) theory and attempted to elicit testimony about the victim’s reputation for violence and firearm possession from a witness (Deondray Little); the trial court limited that questioning because the defense had not yet made a prima facie showing.
The defense challenges several evidentiary rulings, jury instructions (including lesser-included and justification charges), admission of autopsy photographs into the jury room, effectiveness of trial counsel, and denial of a new trial on general grounds.
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed: it found the evidence sufficient, rejected the evidentiary and instructional complaints (many unpreserved or nonprejudicial), rejected ineffective assistance claims, and concluded the trial judge properly acted as thirteenth juror; the Court also noted and disapproved of lengthy post-trial and appellate delays.

Issues

Issue	Morris's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Exclusion of questioning Little about victim’s reputation and refusal/denial to recall him	Little should have been cross-examined about Miller’s reputation for violence and gun-carrying to support self-defense; continuance should have been granted to secure his testimony	No prima facie showing of victim-as-aggressor had been made at that point; defendant failed to proffer what Little would say; denial of continuance within trial court discretion	No error — exclusion appropriate without prima facie showing; defendant failed to show materiality or proffer testimony; any testimony would be cumulative.
Exclusion of two witnesses’ testimony about Morris’s state of mind	Questions about prior sightings of Morris after "bad/unusual" situations were relevant to state of mind	No proffer of substance; defendant failed to call witnesses at new-trial hearing	No abuse of discretion — defendant failed to show what testimony would be and preserved nothing.
Exclusion of testimony about meaning of victim’s tattoo ("MOB")	Tattoo meaning would corroborate motive/justification (showed victim valued money)	Tattoo meaning irrelevant to justification and would support State’s motive theory instead	No error — relevance lacking for justification; exclusion proper.
Admission of pre-autopsy photos and sending them to jury room	Photos were improperly admitted and should not have gone to jury during deliberations	Defense waived/affirmatively declined to re-tender; no timely objection preserved	Not preserved — defense waived objection by affirmatively agreeing they were admitted.
Jury instructions (sequential lesser-included, justification, impeachment, good character, accident, verdict form)	Various errors: improper sequential lesser-included charge, flawed justification/impeachment/good-character charges, failure to charge accident or show how to enter voluntary manslaughter on verdict form	Instructions tracked pattern charges; defense waived some omissions; no accident evidence; jury was adequately instructed and verdict form was sufficient	No plain error — the charge as a whole lawful; omissions waived or not clearly erroneous; accident charge not warranted; verdict form and instructions adequate.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to photos/closing argument/omitting accident charge	Trial counsel should have objected to photos in jury room, improper prosecution statements, and requested accident jury charge	Photos properly admitted; accident charge unjustified; prosecutorial remarks were within permissible argument; objections would have been meritless	No deficient performance or prejudice — claims fail under Strickland; many objections would have been meritless or waived.
Trial court’s exercise as thirteenth juror denying new trial (general grounds)	Trial judge failed to properly exercise discretion as thirteenth juror in denying new trial	Trial court expressly considered submissions and denied motion; presumption that judge exercised discretion	No error — presumption that judge knew and exercised discretion; no positive evidence to contrary.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency-of-evidence standard for jury verdicts)
State v. Hodges, 291 Ga. 413 (victim reputation evidence inadmissible unless prima facie showing of aggressor)
Woods v. State, 269 Ga. 60 (same principle re: reputation evidence and self-defense)
Edge v. State, 261 Ga. 865 (improper sequential lesser-included instruction)
Armstrong v. State, 277 Ga. 122 (court may direct jury to consider greater offense before lesser but not require unanimous verdict on greater first)
Elvie v. State, 289 Ga. 779 (no exact formula for lesser-included instructions; charge must ensure jury considers mitigation)
Dugger v. State, 297 Ga. 120 (justification charge adequate if it covers State’s burden to disprove affirmative defense)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)