Smith v. State
297 Ga. 214
Ga.2015Background
- On Nov. 8, 2009, Ricky Smith shot his brother Steven (wounding him) and then shot and killed his wife, Tajuana Stroud, in front of their child; Smith was a convicted felon.
- Smith was indicted (Jan. 8, 2010) for malice murder, felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault), two counts of aggravated assault (separate shootings), two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- After a March 26–27, 2012 jury trial, Smith was convicted on all counts; the trial court imposed life with parole for malice murder and additional consecutive and concurrent terms as noted in the record.
- Smith appealed, raising issues including failure to obtain a speedy trial, trial-court conduct before the jury, limiting instructions, an unacted-on pro se speedy-trial letter, and multiple ineffective-assistance claims against trial counsel.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed preserved and plain-error claims, and the trial-court denial of Smith’s motion for new trial, concluding Smith failed to carry the burdens required for reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Convictions not supported beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence of shootings, eyewitness testimony supported convictions | Affirmed; evidence sufficient (Jackson standard) |
| Trial-court conversation before jury about prior difficulties | Court erred in holding the discussion in front of the jury | Smith failed to object at trial; issue waived | Waived on appeal; no review granted |
| Jury limiting instructions (prior difficulties and necessity hearsay exception) | Trial court failed to give proper limiting instructions before/with testimony | Record shows pattern prior-difficulties charge was given; necessity instruction was adequate; no objection made (plain-error only) | No reversible error; instruction adequate (no plain error) |
| Pro se speedy-trial letter filed while represented | Court should have acted on the pro se speedy-trial request | A represented defendant cannot file effective pro se motions; filing was unauthorized | Trial court not required to act; letter without effect |
| Ineffective assistance: failure to demand speedy trial | Counsel failed to file speedy-trial demand | Counsel made strategic decision after consultation; delay benefited defense (rapport, witness issues) | No ineffective assistance; tactical decision permissible |
| Ineffective assistance: failure to obtain phone/medical records | Counsel was negligent in not obtaining potentially exculpatory records | Appellant produced no records or proffer at evidentiary hearing to show what they would prove | No ineffective assistance; appellant failed to show prejudice or proffer evidence |
| Ineffective assistance: failure to call witnesses | Counsel should have called witnesses to show victim instigated | Appellant did not present those witnesses or substitutes at the motion hearing | No ineffective assistance; appellant failed to prove or preserve testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 304 (2008) (waiver for failure to object at trial)
- Holloman v. State, 293 Ga. 151 (2013) (plain-error review of jury instructions)
- Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357 (2014) (represented defendants cannot file effective pro se submissions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Wright v. State, 291 Ga. 869 (2012) (standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)
- White v. State, 293 Ga. 825 (2013) (need for proffer or evidence to show omitted records' materiality)
- Crowder v. State, 294 Ga. 167 (2013) (requirement to present uncalled-witness testimony or a substitute at motion hearing)