Pauldo v. State, 317 Ga. 433

On October 29, 2017, Raekwon Pauldo and others were at Zuri Brown’s house; a gunshot injured Jacquel Smith, who later died at the hospital.
Surveillance video showed Pauldo running through the hospital parking lot area shortly before or as Brown parked; police recovered a Taurus 9mm from a drainage ditch in that area and ballistics matched the fatal bullet to that gun.
Brown heard Pauldo threaten Smith and later admitted letting Pauldo exit the car to dispose of the gun; Pauldo admitted hitting Smith with his gun and said it “went off,” but denied an intentional shooting.
Medical examiner testified the fatal wound was close-range (soot/stippling) to the chin with a downward trajectory; an abrasion on Smith’s forehead had parallel lines consistent with being struck by Pauldo’s gun.
Defense theory at trial: the gun had a manufacturer recall for a faulty safety and could discharge without a trigger pull (accident). The State’s firearms expert testified the gun functioned in testing, no “abuse test” was done, and a trace showed the gun was registered to someone else.
Pauldo raised ineffective-assistance claims (failure to present a firearms expert, failure to introduce certified recall documents, failure to limit registration testimony / present purchase proof, and failure to inform him of a 20-year plea offer). The Supreme Court of Georgia applied Strickland and affirmed conviction, rejecting each claim largely for lack of prejudice or lack of shown deficiency.

Issue	Pauldo's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Failure to present a firearms expert (accident defense)	Trial counsel was ineffective for not calling an expert to show the gun could fire without a trigger pull	No prejudice shown because Pauldo presented no evidence at the new-trial hearing about what an expert would have testified to	Assumed deficiency but no prejudice; claim fails
Failure to introduce certified recall documents	Counsel should have introduced certified documentation of the manufacturer's recall to support accident defense	Counsel strategically elicited testimony from State’s expert about recall and lack of abuse testing; no showing of what documents would add	Counsel not shown deficient; claim fails
Failure to limit testimony about gun registration / present proof of purchase	Counsel should have excluded registry testimony or proven Pauldo purchased the gun to avoid prejudice	Evidence of registration did not materially alter outcome given strong inculpatory evidence and trace limitations; no prejudice	Assumed deficiency but no prejudice; claim fails
Failure to inform client of plea offer (20 years voluntary manslaughter)	Counsel inadequately informed Pauldo of the plea, causing rejection of an advantageous offer	No proof Pauldo would have accepted the plea absent counsel’s conduct; trial court found Pauldo never testified he would have accepted	Assumed deficiency but no prejudice because Pauldo did not show he would have accepted; claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two‑part ineffective‑assistance test)
Bates v. State, 313 Ga. 57 (discussing Strickland standard and prejudice burden)
Coley v. State, 305 Ga. 658 (prejudice not shown where appellant failed to show what omitted testing/expert would have shown)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice in plea‑offer context requires defendant would have accepted the offer)
Davenport v. State, 309 Ga. 385 (circumstantial evidence can be very strong when corroborated by forensic evidence and post‑crime concealment)
Kellam v. State, 298 Ga. 520 (elements for asserting accident defense)
Calhoun v. State, 308 Ga. 146 (applying Lafler standard to plea‑offer ineffective‑assistance claims)