Palmer v. State, 303 Ga. 810

Background

In Dec. 2013, Xavier Arnold was shot and later died; co-defendants Qutravius Palmer and 14‑year‑old Zion Wainwright were arrested and jointly tried; evidence showed the two acted together and Wainwright fired the fatal shot after Palmer restrained Arnold and allegedly ordered the shooting.
Witnesses, cell‑phone records, a neighbor’s statement and Palmer’s post‑incident admissions placed Palmer at the scene and running from it; one witness recanted at trial claiming intimidation by Palmer’s family.
Palmer was indicted on multiple counts (including felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses); jury convicted him of all counts except malice murder; sentenced to consecutive life terms for felony murder and armed robbery plus additional terms.
Pretrial, Palmer filed for a psychiatric evaluation and was found competent by a Georgia DBHDD psychologist; during trial Palmer made some confused statements and attempted to address the court directly.
After conviction, Palmer argued the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a new competency evaluation, that the court erred by denying severance from Wainwright, and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance (failing to investigate competency and failing to object to witness threat testimony and alleged bolstering).
The trial court and the Georgia Supreme Court found the pretrial evaluation and trial record did not raise a bona fide doubt about competency; severance was discretionary and not required; counsel’s performance was not deficient or prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Palmer's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Trial court’s sua sponte duty to order new competency evaluation	Court should have ordered another evaluation based on Palmer’s confused courtroom behavior	Pretrial evaluation found competence; trial behavior did not objectively raise a bona fide doubt	No error — no bona fide doubt; existing evaluation and counsel’s testimony supported competence (Traylor/Biggs standard)
Motion to sever co‑defendants’ trials	Joint trial prejudiced Palmer because defenses were antagonistic and identity issue existed	Discretion to deny severance; evidence and law largely applicable to both; antagonistic defenses alone insufficient	Denial affirmed — Palmer failed to show clear prejudice warranting severance
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate competency	Counsel failed to pursue further medical inquiry despite signs of instability	Counsel had filed for evaluation, was satisfied with improvement and the psychologist’s opinion of competence	Claim fails — no deficient performance or medical evidence of incompetence (Strickland)
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to witness threat testimony and alleged bolstering	Counsel should have objected to testimony about threats and prosecutor’s redirect (bolstering)	Threat testimony was admissible (circumstantial evidence or to explain reluctance); redirect rehabilitated a hostile witness and objection would be meritless	Claim fails — objections would be meritless and no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Traylor v. State, 280 Ga. 400 (2006) (when trial court must inquire into competency)
Biggs v. State, 281 Ga. 627 (2007) (trial behavior, counsel testimony, and prior medical opinion inform competency inquiry)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Herbert v. State, 288 Ga. 843 (2011) (standards for severance analysis)
Marquez v. State, 298 Ga. 448 (2016) (defendant’s burden to show prejudice from joint trial)
Moss v. State, 298 Ga. 613 (2016) (failure to make meritless objection does not establish ineffective assistance)
Kell v. State, 280 Ga. 669 (2006) (evidence of attempts to influence witnesses admissible as circumstantial evidence)
Foster v. State, 294 Ga. 383 (2014) (admission of threats to explain witness reluctance within trial court’s discretion)
Brown v. State, 302 Ga. 454 (2017) (rehabilitation of a witness after credibility attack is permissible)