Smith v. State, 703 S.E.2d 629

Sonya and Joseph Smith were convicted after a consolidated jury trial for felony murder, involuntary manslaughter, cruelty to children, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and reckless conduct in connection with the death of their eight-year-old son Josef.
The evidence showed extensive abuse (beatings with glue sticks, belts, heated coat hangers; confinement in boxes; tying hands) and that Josef died from blunt force trauma or asphyxiation.
In Case No. S10A1281 (Sonya), issues included improper closing argument, ineffective assistance, and other trial‑level rulings; in Case No. S10A1282 (Joseph), issues included sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance, and merging/dual convictions.
The State’s closing argument included a birthday cake and lit candles in court, which the defense argued was improper and prejudicial; the trial court did not stop it.
The majority held the closing-argument issue was waived due to lack of defense objection, and otherwise affirmed the convictions; a dissenter urged reversal for prosecutorial misconduct and trial-court decorum failures.
On appeal, the court analyzed sufficiency of the evidence, various trial‑level rulings, ineffective assistance claims under Strickland, and the mutual exclusivity of related murder convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor birthday cake closing argument	Smiths claim prosecutorial misconduct violated fair trial.	Waived review due to lack of objection; closing argument within discretion.	Waived; no reversible error on this issue.
Mistrial and curative instruction	Improper testimony warranted mistrial to preserve fairness.	Curative instruction sufficed to preserve fair trial.	No abuse; curative instruction adequately preserved fairness.
Ineffective assistance—overall	Counsel rendered ineffective assistance in multiple respects.	Counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable; no deficient performance.	No reversible ineffectiveness; Strickland standard not met overall.
Mutual exclusivity of felony murder and involuntary manslaughter	Verdicts were mutually exclusive and should be merged/limited.	Veridcts not mutually exclusive; multiple bases for convictions supported by evidence.	Not mutually exclusive; legitimate basis for multiple verdicts.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (sufficiency of evidence review for rational trier of fact)
Paul v. State, 272 Ga. 845 (2000) (plain error review and decorum concerns in exceptional circumstances)
Silber v. United States, 370 U.S. 717 (1962) (plain error framework in exceptional cases)
Almond v. State, 180 Ga. App. 475 (1986) (exceptional circumstances allowing review of errors without objection)
Davis v. State, 285 Ga. 343 (2009) (prosecutorial conduct in closing argument and requirement of curative instructions)
McKenzie v. State, 284 Ga. 342 (2008) (closing argument strategy and sufficiency of defense impact)