O'Donnell v. Smith, 294 Ga. 307

Smith was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life in 2002; conviction affirmed on direct appeal in 2003.
Post-conviction habeas petition claimed ineffective assistance for challenging venue, the unredacted indictment going to the jury, and seating of an alternate juror.
Habeas court granted relief on all claims; appellate reversal is the issue before the Court.
Central factual disputes concern where the crime occurred (venue) and whether a juror-affidavit improperly tainted deliberations.
Evidence showed the stabbing and related acts occurred in Fulton County; the indictment listed extra charges not in the body but those charges were not prejudicial or material to the verdict.
Court addresses whether juror-affidavit evidence and other trial conduct prejudiced the defendant and whether counsel’s performance was deficient under the two-prong Strickland standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Venue proof sufficient to support Fulton County venue	Smith argued venue may have been improper on appeal	Smith contends venue was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt	Venue proven; counsel not deficient for failing to raise venue on appeal
Unredacted indictment sent to jury prejudiced trial	Smith claims unredacted charges on dead docket harmed defense	Warden argues no prejudice since four charges in body were read and verdict supports murder conviction	Habeas court erred; no prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim on this ground rejected
Admissibility and prejudice of replacement juror affidavit (Mr. Mahan)	Affidavit improperly impeaches verdict and shows prejudicial jury communication	Affidavit should be considered, but prejudice shown?	Affidavit improperly used to support ineffective-assistance claim; no prejudice established
Failure to challenge seating of replacement juror constitutes ineffective assistance	Counsel should have objected to Mr. Mahan’s seating	No prejudice shown; voir dire and replacement handled in trial	No prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim rejected
General rule against juror affidavits vs. defendant’s right to fair trial	Rule should permit juror affidavits to support due-process claims	Rule exceptions apply only when juror statements show substantial prejudice	Habeas court erred in considering juror-affidavit evidence; due-process not violated

Watkins v. State, 237 Ga. 678 (1976) (juror affidavits generally cannot impeach verdicts; exceptions apply)
Henley v. State, 285 Ga. 500 (2009) (jury verdict may be impeached to preserve a fair trial under certain conditions)
Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820 (1997) (limitation on post-trial jury-affidavit use to overturn verdict)
Bobo v. State, 254 Ga. 146 (1985) (prejudicial juror communications can affect verdicts)
Williams v. State, 252 Ga. 7 (1984) (juror statements about prior knowledge may be insufficient to overturn verdict)
Spencer v. State, 260 Ga. 640 (1990) (preclusion of juror-affidavit evidence where no prejudice shown)
Armstrong v. State, 286 Ga. 420 (2010) (proof of venue adequate when map and testimony show location in county)
Lanham v. State, 291 Ga. 625 (2012) (venue proof requirements for crime location within county)
Duvall v. State, 290 Ga. 475 (2012) (counsel not deficient for objections lacking merit)
Smith v. State, 277 Ga. 213 (2003) (direct-appeal holding on indictment and harm guidance)