Naji v. State, 300 Ga. 659

Brothers David and Michael Naji were convicted of murder for the December 25, 2008 shooting of Demetrius Hill during a planned robbery.
Victim was driven in the sister’s car with Michael driving and David in the rear; the victim was shot in the back of the head with a .32 revolver.
Blood evidence and a shirt worn by David were linked to the victim’s blood; cellular records placed the brothers near relevant locations during the time window.
State introduced testimony from Dr. Heninger, associate medical examiner, who reviewed the autopsy file prepared by another examiner and opined homicide by gunshot wound.
Trial court admitted the testimony despite confrontation concerns; Bullcoming v. New Mexico is discussed to distinguish admissibility of expert testimony.
On appeal, the court affirms in part, vacates in part (sentencing merges), and remands for sentencing on the firearm-by-convicted-felon counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Naji brothers were mere bystanders; no proof of intent or participation.	Presence and actions before/during/after show intent and participation; conspiracy/party to crime established.	Evidence sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Admissibility/confrontation of medical examiner testimony	Dr. Heninger’s opinion relied on autopsy data and should be admissible as expert testimony.	Admission violated confrontation and Bullcoming framework; substitute testimony improper.	Testimony admissible; Bullcoming distinguished; confrontation not violated.
Ineffective assistance claim based on defense counsel's objections	Counsel should have continued objection and moved for mistrial over examiner testimony.	Failure to object or mistrial motion was objectively unreasonable.	No ineffective assistance; testimony admissible under former law, meritless objection.
Sentencing merger for firearm-by-convicted-felon counts	Counts 8 and 9 merge into murder counts and should be treated accordingly.	Counts do not merge because they include elements not in malice murder.	Counts 8 and 9 do not merge; remand for sentencing on those counts.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal conviction based on evidence)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (limits on admitting substitute lab reports; admissibility depends on foundation)
Turner v. State, 273 Ga. 340 (Ga. 2001) (expert testimony may rely on data collected by others under certain rules)
Velazquez v. State, 282 Ga. 871 (Ga. 2008) (expert opinion based on hearsay data weighs on weight rather than admissibility)
Belsar v. State, 276 Ga. 261 (Ga. 2003) (presence and conduct can support party-to-crime conviction)
Jones v. State, 299 Ga. 377 (Ga. 2016) (non-merger of separate firearm/ felon-in-possession counts with murder)
Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (Ga. 1993) (merger principles in sentencing can affect multiple charges)