Starling v. State, 299 Ga. 263

In July 2010 Arthur "Ricky" Starling shot and killed his long‑time girlfriend Carolyn Johnson at her home; several family members were present and he then shot himself, losing an arm.
Starling made two recorded statements to police (one five days post‑shooting while hospitalized, one three days later in jail) admitting he "snapped," claimed not to know the gun was loaded, but later acknowledged the pump shotgun required manual pumping between shots and admitted failing to render aid.
A court‑appointed psychologist, Dr. John Parmer, evaluated Starling and testified for the defense that Starling had low IQ and untreated diabetes which could impair judgment, but found him competent and not legally insane or delusional at the time of the offense.
At trial the State introduced evidence of prior violent incidents by Starling (a 1992 shooting and a 1999 assault report), and the jury convicted him of malice murder (life without parole) and multiple related counts; one felony‑murder count was left without a verdict.
Starling moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance for failing to obtain/use an expert on insanity and challenged the admissibility of his hospitalized statement as involuntary due to pain/medication.
The trial court denied the new trial motion; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, holding no ineffective assistance and that the hospitalized statement was knowingly and voluntarily given.

Issue	Starling's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for not retaining an expert on insanity	Counsel was deficient for not hiring/using an expert to support an insanity defense	Counsel reasonably relied on court‑appointed psychologist and cost concerns; no proffer of an expert or testimony that would have helped	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown because no expert proffered
Failure to introduce expert testimony at trial	Same as above: absence of expert deprived defense of crucial evidence	Parmer’s testimony was available and did not support insanity; counsel’s decisions not objectively unreasonable given circumstances	No ineffective assistance; Strickland prejudice not established
Admissibility of hospitalized statement (voluntariness)	Statement involuntary due to trauma, surgery, and pain medication	Nurse cleared defendant; officer observed coherence; Miranda warnings and waiver given; recording corroborates voluntariness	Statement admissible; totality of circumstances support knowing, voluntary waiver
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (general grounds)	(Implicit) evidence insufficient	Evidence established shootings, admissions, and jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient to support convictions

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency review requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
Romer v. State, 293 Ga. 339 (standard for assessing counsel performance)
Wesley v. State, 286 Ga. 355 (Georgia precedent on Strickland application)
Green v. State, 291 Ga. 579 (failure to satisfy either Strickland prong precludes relief)
Ballard v. State, 297 Ga. 248 (defendant must proffer the testimony counsel should have presented to show prejudice)
Grant v. State, 295 Ga. 126 (same—no prejudice without proffered evidence)
Rivera v. State, 282 Ga. 355 (hospitalization/medication alone does not render statement involuntary)
Bunnell v. State, 292 Ga. 253 (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness of statements)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (procedures for determining voluntariness of confessions)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and waiver required for custodial interrogation)