Redding v. State
307 Ga. 722
Ga.2020Background
- Victim Christopher Kenyatta was found fatally shot on July 6, 2016; autopsy recovered four .22-caliber bullets and one hand wound consistent with defensive action.
- Kerri Redding (Appellant) and Kenyatta had recent disputes; Redding previously possessed a .22 Magnum revolver that had been returned to him months earlier.
- Multiple witnesses linked Redding to the scene: a recorded statement by co-defendant Christopher Gaskins implicated Redding (later recanted at trial), neighbors reported seeing/apparel with blood, and a credit card belonging to a friend was found on the victim.
- Redding was arrested in Alabama about six months later; detectives testified about possible flight. Redding did not testify and maintained someone else in the high-crime area could have committed the murder.
- A jury convicted Redding of malice murder and related offenses; he received life plus a consecutive five-year firearm sentence. Redding appealed, raising ineffective-assistance claims and evidentiary errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not cross-examining King about potential sentence | Counsel should have asked King about the 20-year exposure and probation status to show bias | No concrete plea deal existed; cross about sentence could have been barred and counsel used other credibility attacks | No deficient performance; questioning of sentence could have been disallowed and counsel pursued reasonable strategy |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not cross‑examining Gaskins about possible sentence on false‑statement charge | Counsel should have exposed Gaskins’s incentive to implicate Redding by highlighting possible 1–5 year exposure | No plea deal existed; Gaskins’s testimony largely favored Redding and counsel highlighted inconsistencies instead | No deficient performance; reasonable tactical choice not to pursue sentencing line |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to lead detective’s testimony that flight indicates avoiding prosecution | Detective’s statement improperly suggested consciousness of guilt and should have been excluded | Flight evidence is generally admissible; comment was brief and patently obvious; counsel undermined it via cross and argument | No deficient performance or prejudice; comment posed little danger and counsel reasonably used cross-examination and closing argument |
| Trial court erred by excluding certified conviction to impeach out‑of‑court statement (Derek White) | Redding sought to impeach White’s hearsay statement with his 2007 NY weapons conviction under OCGA § 24-8-806 | Trial court excluded the certified conviction (court denied request); State noted detective already testified White admitted serving time | Even if exclusion was error, harmless: detective already testified White served 5.5 years and other testimony showed White’s suspicious conduct, making reversal not highly probable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-part test)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- Brown v. State, 302 Ga. 454 (strong presumption of reasonable counsel performance)
- Flannigan v. State, 305 Ga. 57 (cross-examining co-indictee about exposure may be barred absent concrete plea deal)
- Smith v. State, 300 Ga. 538 (trial court may prohibit cross-examining potential sentence without concrete plea agreement)
- Romer v. State, 293 Ga. 339 (scope of cross-examination is tactical)
- Thompson v. State, 304 Ga. 146 (patently obvious comments by witnesses pose little prejudice)
- Faust v. State, 302 Ga. 211 (decision to object or rely on cross-examination is strategic)
- Winters v. State, 305 Ga. 226 (harmless-error standard: whether error highly probable to have contributed to verdict)