State v. Abernathy, 289 Ga. 603

Abernathy was convicted by a White County jury of malice murder and aggravated assault for a January 2008 stabbing; he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and the aggravated assault merged for sentencing.
The trial court granted a new trial based on a finding of ineffective assistance due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from co-arrestee Geren’s prior representation within the same circuit public defender’s office.
Geren, a key witness, had been represented briefly by the Enotah Circuit Public Defender’s Office; Abernathy’s counsel Brown had no knowledge of that representation.
The State appealed the new-trial order, and Abernathy cross-appealed challenging other grounds for reversal.
The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the grant of a new trial on the conflict-of-interest ground and remanded for proceedings, while affirming some other aspects of the conviction and addressing remaining issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an actual conflict of interest requires showing prejudice to warrant relief.	Abernathy argues actual conflict existed and harmed representation.	State argues conflict exists but prejudice not shown.	New trial improper on conflict grounds; prejudice must be shown to be reliefable.
Was the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for malice murder?	Sufficient evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Evidence insufficient or improperly weighed.	Evidence was sufficient to sustain the malice murder and aggravated assault verdict.
Did prior public defender office conflicts (Brown vs. Geren) require relief independent of prejudice showing?	Conflict of interest existed; may affect fairness.	No showing of adverse effect on Abernathy’s representation.	No per se or actual adverse effect proven; no necessary reversal on this basis.
Did trial counsel act deficiently under Strickland-like standard for mental-health evidence and trial strategy?	Counsel failed to pursue mental-health defenses adequately.	Counsel reasonably chose strategy and pursued available evaluations.	No deficient performance proven; decisions reasonable strategic choices.
Was the voir dire in private conference room permissible and prejudicial to public-trial rights?	Private voir dire violated the right to a public trial.	Procedure justified to promote candor and fair trial; not prejudicial.	Procedure permissible under right-to-fair trial; prejudice not shown.

Edwards v. Lewis, 283 Ga. 345 (2008) (actual conflict requires significant effect on representation)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for contested conviction)
Tarwater v. State, 259 Ga. 516 (1989) (co-defendant plea conditioning and conflicts guidance)
Mitchell v. State, 261 Ga. 347 (1991) (conflict of interest and cross-examination limitations guidance)
Whitus v. State, 287 Ga. 801 (2010) (no deficient performance where strategy reasonable; insanity not pursued)