Smith v. State
309 Ga. App. 241
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Smith was convicted in Georgia state court of one count of aggravated assault after a 2005 shooting involving Harris.
- Evidence showed Harris testified he was 6-7 feet away when Smith, in a truck, shot him; Smith claimed self-defense and that the gun went off during a struggle.
- Haley Strom testified she heard two men arguing and saw a man with a pistol in a truck window; no other eyewitnesses testified.
- Smith moved for new trial on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct (Brady), newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and lack of a pre-sentencing hearing; the trial court denied.
- On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed denial of the new trial motion.
- At issue was whether withheld officer opinions, newly discovered witness testimony, defense counsel performance, and pre-sentence procedures required reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation proof | Smith asserts exculpatory evidence was withheld. | State argues officers’ opinions are not evidence and no undue prejudice shown. | No new trial; waiver and no reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| Newly discovered evidence | Riley eyewitness testimony could have altered outcome. | Due diligence lacking; trial court’s discretion should stand. | No abuse of discretion; due diligence not shown and no prejudice. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (general) | Counsel failed to adequately investigate and meet with Smith pre-trial. | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; defense strategies supported by record. | No reversal; no reasonable probability outcome would differ. |
| Advice on specific defense (defense of habitation) | Counsel failed to request defense of habitation instruction. | Strategic decision; no clear deficiency or prejudice shown. | No reversal; defense of habitation instruction not required given self-defense jury outcome. |
| Pre-sentencing investigation | Counsel unprepared due to lack of family interviews; sentencing procedure flawed. | No identified legal error; no proffer of what daughter would say. | Trial court properly denied new trial on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Locher v. State, 293 Ga.App. 67 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial rulings)
- Mondy v. State, 229 Ga. App. 311 (1997) (waiver and non-dispositive Brady considerations)
- Nelson v. State, 279 Ga.App. 859 (2006) (Brady waiver and evidence disclosure principles)
- Ellis v. State, 289 Ga.App. 452 (2008) (new-trial standard and materiality of undisclosed evidence)
- Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488 (1980) (due diligence for newly discovered evidence; trial court discretion)
- Woodard v. State, 289 Ga.App. 643 (2008) (prejudice and due diligence in new-trial motions)
- Henry v. State, 279 Ga. 615 (2005) (trial counsel performance examined under Strickland standard)
- Rose v. State, 258 Ga.App. 232 (2002) (applying Strickland after trial-counsel deficiencies)
- Muller v. State, 284 Ga. 70 (2008) (effective assistance standard; deference to trial court findings)
- Benham v. State, 277 Ga. 516 (2004) (defense of habitation; deficiency by counsel in not pursuing it; distinguishable facts)