Moss v. State
298 Ga. 613
Ga.2016Background
- On March 5, 2011 Rashymel Young was shot and killed while walking with his brother Dennis Harding in Savannah; Harding and two other eyewitnesses identified the shooter as Willie Moss and described a dark green Camaro with tinted windows.
- Police identified Moss and co-indictee Javonte Wright via a Facebook photo and school records; Wright’s charges were later nolle prossed.
- Moss was arrested six days later; at a September 2013 trial a jury convicted him of malice murder and possession of a firearm during a felony; Moss was sentenced to life plus consecutive five years.
- Post-trial, Moss raised multiple claims on appeal: insufficiency of evidence, procedural/due-process errors (discovery delay, redacted indictment, late arraignment), denial of motion to quash a warrant for cell-phone records, confrontation/cross-examination limits regarding the victim’s prior shooting, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, rejecting each claim and finding eyewitness identification and corroborating evidence sufficient, procedural claims waived or nonprejudicial, no preserved Fourth Amendment suppression claim, cross-examination properly limited, and counsel’s strategic decisions reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Moss: lack of physical evidence and only Harding identified shooter at trial | State: multiple eyewitnesses, matching car description, eyewitness ID sufficient | Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient under Jackson standard |
| Procedural due process (discovery, redacted indictment, arraignment) | Moss: discovery delayed, redacted indictment prejudicial, arraigned only after trial | State: defense had file access, redaction permissible, failure to object to arraignment waived | No due-process violation; claims lacked prejudice or were waived |
| Motion to quash cell‑phone warrant / Fourth Amendment | Moss: warrant invalid under 18 U.S.C. §2703 and issued by improper court | State: claim withdrawn at hearing; records belong to provider so no reasonable expectation of privacy | Waived by withdrawal; on merits current doctrine forecloses suppression; no remedy under federal statute |
| Confrontation / cross‑examination about prior shooting | Moss: cross-examination should show other suspects by eliciting victim’s prior shooting | State: proffered evidence speculative and not directly connecting another to this murder | Court upheld trial court discretion; proffer insufficient under Klinect and OCGA §24‑4‑403 |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Moss: counsel erred on procedural objections, not moving to quash, not objecting to autopsy photos, not calling alibi witness, and failing to develop prior‑shooting argument | State: strategic choices reasonable; objections would likely fail; alibi witness credibility weak; autopsy photos relevant | Strickland standard not met; counsel’s decisions were reasonable and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (conviction must be supported by evidence allowing a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (scope of confrontation rights and harmless‑error analysis)
- Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objections)
- Colzie v. State, 289 Ga. 120 (single witness testimony can suffice for conviction)
- Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (credibility and conflicts are jury questions)
- Ross v. State, 296 Ga. 636 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in provider subscriber records; waiver by withdrawing objection)
- Registe v. State, 292 Ga. 154 (subscriber and call‑toll records belong to provider for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- Kesler v. State, 249 Ga. 462 (similar holding on provider records and privacy)
- Hampton v. State, 295 Ga. 665 (federal §2703 provides no suppression remedy under state proceedings)
- Klinect v. State, 269 Ga. 570 (evidence alleging another perpetrator must directly connect that person to the corpus delicti)
- Woodall v. State, 294 Ga. 624 (trial court may exclude evidence grounded in rumor, speculation, or conjecture)
- Nicely v. State, 291 Ga. 788 (scope of cross‑examination lies within trial court’s discretion)
- United States v. De Parias, 805 F.2d 1447 (autopsy photos admissible to show manner and location of injuries)
- United States v. Kaiser, 545 F.2d 467 (photographs of homicide victims not necessarily more gruesome than inherent in a murder record)