Parker v. the State
339 Ga. App. 285
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Around 2:00 a.m., two victims were accosted by four armed men in an apartment complex; the female victim was struck with a gun and severely injured. Both victims later identified Daireem Parker at trial as the first man who confronted them and who struck the female victim.
- Surveillance and vehicle identification: victims saw the first man drive off in a blue Ford Taurus with a small spoiler; the tag traced the car to Parker’s mother, who testified Parker commonly used the vehicle.
- Photo lineups: the female victim immediately and unequivocally identified Parker from a photo lineup; the male victim was less certain and did not make a positive identification of Parker.
- Arrest and flight: officers arrested Parker after observing him arrive in the blue Ford; Parker fled from a patrol car after being handcuffed, which officers captured in testimony.
- Trial testimony: Parker denied involvement, claimed he fled believing he was being kidnapped, and testified he had never been in “a situation like this.” The State impeached him with a prior aggravated-assault charge that resulted in convictions for misdemeanor family-violence battery and related offenses.
- Procedural posture: Parker was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm during a felony. He appealed, raising evidentiary and ineffective-assistance claims; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Parker's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parker “opened the door” to admission of his prior charge/conviction (impeachment by contradiction) | Parker argued his testimony that he had never been in “a situation like this” did not open the door to character evidence and that impeachment under OCGA § 24‑6‑609 was improper because prior convictions were misdemeanors | The State argued Parker’s testimony implied he had never been in a similar criminal situation, so it could disprove that fact by introducing the prior aggravated‑assault charge (even though plea resulted in misdemeanors) | Court: No abuse of discretion; prior charge/conviction admissible to impeach by disproving the fact to which Parker testified (OCGA § 24‑6‑621) |
| Whether the court erred by sustaining the State’s objection to Parker explaining the circumstances of the prior charges | Parker sought to explain that the prior family‑violence matter involved the mother of his children and asserted a right to present context (Davis relied upon) | State argued the scope of redirect was limited because the prior charge/conviction was admitted only to disprove a fact, not to reopen character evidence | Court: No abuse of discretion; once the prior charge was admitted solely to disprove a factual assertion, trial court properly limited Parker’s proffered explanatory detail |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument that implied Parker’s propensity to commit crime | Parker argued counsel’s failure to object allowed improper propensity argument and was professionally deficient and prejudicial under Strickland | State acknowledged the closing went too far but argued the evidence of guilt was strong and no reasonable probability of a different outcome existed | Court: Counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the propensity portion of closing, but Parker failed Strickland prejudice prong — no reasonable probability verdict would differ given strong identification and other evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing ineffective-assistance standard)
- Holloman v. State, 291 Ga. 338 (trial court discretion to infer defendant’s meaning from testimony when assessing opening the door)
- Phillips v. State, 285 Ga. 213 (prior conviction used for impeachment cannot be argued as propensity evidence)
- Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601 (Evidence Code prohibits using other crimes evidence to show propensity)
- Davis v. State, 209 Ga. App. 755 (scope of cross-examination regarding circumstances of prior arrest)
- Williams v. State, 171 Ga. App. 927 (prior troubles admissible for impeachment by contradiction)
- Whitaker v. State, 291 Ga. 139 (strong evidence of guilt undermines claim of prejudice from counsel error)
- Herrington v. State, 332 Ga. App. 828 (no reasonable probability of different outcome where prior-conviction impeachment error occurred but evidence was strong)