Mosby v. State
300 Ga. 450
| Ga. | 2017Background
- On November 13, 2012, Leslie Mosby confronted Pat Burns and Theisen Wynn in a hotel parking lot; a shootout followed in which Wynn died and Mosby was wounded. Mosby discarded her gun while fleeing and neither firearm was recovered.
- Mosby testified she fired a warning shot at Burns, then acted in self‑defense after hearing what she believed was Wynn drawing and firing his weapon from his coat pocket.
- Security video (played repeatedly at trial and slow‑motion/frame‑by‑frame) and witness testimony (including Burns) showed Mosby fired first and appeared to push Burns before shooting; the jury saw muzzle flash from Mosby’s gun first.
- Medical evidence showed Wynn had a muzzle‑contact wound on his left thigh and a fatal gunshot to the right groin. The State argued the thigh wound did not show self‑infliction altered the justification analysis.
- Mosby was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assaults, and firearms offenses; sentenced to life plus consecutive terms. She moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance for failure to consult or present firearms/reconstruction expert testimony. The trial court denied the motion; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mosby) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to disprove self‑defense | Video and other evidence do not disprove self‑defense; muzzle imprint suggests Wynn fired from very close range or himself | Video, witness testimony, and physical evidence support jury finding Mosby fired first and was the aggressor | Evidence sufficient; jury could reject self‑defense and convict |
| Admissibility / necessity of expert testimony on video interpretation | An expert was needed to explain grainy video and sequence/positions to support justification theory | Jurors could view and interpret the video themselves; expert not necessary | Expert testimony not required; jurors could draw conclusions from the video |
| Failure to consult/retain firearms or reconstruction expert (ineffective assistance) | Counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudicial; an expert would have supported self‑defense and ballistic/trajectory arguments | Failure to call an expert was a reasonable tactic; expert testimony might have been inadmissible or contradicted Mosby’s own testimony and likely would not have changed outcome | No deficient performance shown and, even assuming deficiency, Mosby failed to prove a reasonable probability of a different result |
| Use of ballistic/trajectory evidence to show fatal shot occurred while fleeing | Such evidence could have shown Mosby fired the fatal shot only while escaping, supporting lack of malice/justification context | Even if fatal shot occurred while Mosby was fleeing, she was the aggressor who started the gunfight; aggressor is not entitled to justification | Court held that being the aggressor precludes justification; trajectory argument would not likely have changed verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. State, 265 Ga. 38 (affirming State’s burden to disprove affirmative defenses)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Bly v. State, 283 Ga. 453 (limits on admissibility of expert testimony when jury can decide from evidence)
- Coleman v. State, 257 Ga. 313 (expert testimony unnecessary where jury can form conclusions from physical evidence)
- Parks v. State, 300 Ga. 303 (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions absent evidence they were unreasonable)
- Gill v. State, 295 Ga. 705 (defendant must prove both deficiency and prejudice for IAC)