Southall v. State, 300 Ga. 462

Defendant Amos Southall was tried for the February 2008 killing of Michelle Hainley; jury convicted him of malice murder and related drug offenses; life without parole sentence imposed.
Physical evidence linked Southall to the victim (DNA on vaginal swab; semen on bathmat; fingerprints on pizza box); eyewitness/jailhouse confession testimony was also presented.
Southall filed a motion for new trial prematurely (filed before the judgment was entered); he later amended the motion and the trial court denied it; appeal followed.
On appeal Southall challenged (1) the treatment of his prematurely filed motion for new trial and (2) a Brady/Giglio claim that the prosecution failed to disclose that witness Harry Jackson believed he would receive parole-board assistance in exchange for testifying.
The trial court found no evidence of any prosecutorial promise or agreement to benefit Jackson; the court also independently reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and found it adequate to support the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of prematurely filed motion for new trial	Southall argued his premature motion should be considered and its denial reviewable on the merits	State (and prior precedent) treated premature motions as void so claims directed solely to denial could be dismissed	Court overruled prior rule from Harrison Division 2; premature motion that sufficiently identifies the judgment ripens upon entry and may be reviewed on merits
Sufficiency of the evidence	Implicitly argued convictions should not stand	State relied on DNA, physical evidence, witness statements, and jailhouse confession corroboration	Court independently held evidence sufficient to support conviction under Jackson v. Virginia
Brady/Giglio nondisclosure re: witness benefit	Southall: prosecution failed to disclose that Jackson believed prosecutors would contact parole board (which would impeach Jackson)	State: no evidence of any actual agreement or promise; one-sided belief or hope is not a prosecutorial deal; prosecutors and investigators denied any promise	Court held no Brady/Giglio violation: record failed to show an actual or informal prosecutorial agreement and the trial court’s finding of no agreement was not clearly erroneous

Harrison v. Harrison, 229 Ga. 692 (addressed timing and validity of premature motions for new trial)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for legal sufficiency of evidence)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor obligation to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (duty to disclose impeachment evidence concerning witness deals)
Gillen v. Bostick, 234 Ga. 308 (premature filings may be treated as filed upon entry of judgment)
Nwakanma v. State, 296 Ga. 493 (one-sided hope does not establish a deal; no Giglio/Brady violation absent evidence of agreement)
Wearry v. Cain, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (Brady/Giglio principles regarding witness deals and impeachment material)