Salvesen v. State, 317 Ga. 314

Walter G. Salvesen III was indicted (Dec. 1, 2015) for malice murder, felony murder, and possession of a firearm during a crime in connection with the shooting death of Johnathan Martin; a jury convicted him and the court sentenced him to life without parole (malice) plus a consecutive five years for the firearm offense.
Salvesen testified he shot Martin after Martin threatened him and reached for a gun; he admitted firing five rounds, then wrapping Martin’s body in a tarp and dumping it in Burke County.
Martin’s body was found decomposed; the medical examiner could not determine which wound caused death; crime-scene and autopsy photographs were introduced at trial.
During deliberations the jury asked for definitions of malice murder and felony murder; the trial court recharged on those crimes but did not separately recharge on voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.
On appeal Salvesen challenged (1) admission of crime-scene and autopsy photographs as unduly prejudicial/cumulative, (2) the court’s failure to recharge on lesser manslaughter offenses when recharging on murder counts, and (3) trial counsel’s effectiveness for allegedly failing to preserve objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of crime-scene and autopsy photos	Photos were gruesome and cumulative; cause of death not disputed so photos were unnecessary and unduly prejudicial	Photos were relevant to nature/location of wounds, decomposition, and evidence of concealment; probative value outweighed any prejudice	Admission not an abuse of discretion under OCGA §24-4-403; photos probative (rebut self-defense, show concealment)
Failure to recharge on lesser manslaughter offenses	Court should have recharged on voluntary/involuntary manslaughter when asked to define malice and felony murder	Jury requested only malice/felony murder definitions; trial court has discretion to limit recharge to points requested	No error; court acted within discretion in limiting recharge to points the jury requested
Ineffective assistance for failure to preserve objections	Counsel failed to preserve objections to photos and recharge, warranting Strickland relief	Counsel timely objected to photos and obtained rulings; any failure to object to meritless claims is not deficient	Ineffective-assistance claim fails: no deficient performance and no prejudice shown

Perez v. State, 309 Ga. 687 (discusses relevance and OCGA Rule 403 balancing)
Favors v. State, 305 Ga. 366 (trial court’s broad discretion under Rule 403)
Plez v. State, 300 Ga. 505 (gruesome photos not per se inadmissible if relevant)
Allen v. State, 307 Ga. 707 (autopsy photos probative even if cause not disputed)
Albury v. State, 314 Ga. 459 (post-incision autopsy photo admissibility)
Bannister v. State, 306 Ga. 289 (evidence of concealment as consciousness of guilt)
Richardson v. State, 308 Ga. 70 (attempt to conceal probative of guilt)
Orr v. State, 305 Ga. 729 (concealment-related conduct admissible)
Barnes v. State, 305 Ga. 18 (discretion to limit recharge to jury’s request)
Dozier v. State, 306 Ga. 29 (no mandate to recharge on all related principles)
Sampson v. State, 279 Ga. 8 (scope of recharge is discretionary)
Salahuddin v. State, 277 Ga. 561 (recharge discretion reiterated)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Washington v. State, 313 Ga. 771 (Georgia’s application of Strickland)