Steen v. State, 312 Ga. 614

Dustin Michael Steen was convicted of malice murder and possession of a knife after the 2015 stabbing death of Edward Newhouse outside a Burke County bar; Steen received life without parole on the malice murder conviction.
Surveillance and multiple eyewitnesses at trial described Steen on top of Newhouse and repeatedly stabbing him; medical testimony showed fatal stab wounds, including penetration of both ventricles.
Steen testified he acted in self-defense, claiming he was assaulted, maced, and shot before drawing his knife.
During jury selection the judge conducted unrecorded bench conferences about jurors; the transcript shows the court announced two jurors were excused "by agreement," and counsel affirmed; no on-the-record objection was made at trial.
Steen later raised a right-to-be-present claim in an amended motion for new trial; testimony at the new-trial hearings conflicted about whether Steen was informed of or acquiesced in counsel’s waiver of his presence and whether he was physically present at bench conferences.
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction as to sufficiency of the evidence but vacated part of the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial and remanded for the trial court to make explicit factual findings and credibility determinations on the right-to-be-present waiver issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to disprove self-defense	Steen: his use of the knife was defensive after being attacked, maced, and shot.	State: eyewitnesses and physical evidence support a malice murder finding; credibility for jury.	Affirmed: evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to reject self-defense.
Right to be present at bench conferences during voir dire	Steen: he was excluded from unrecorded bench conferences and did not knowingly waive his right to be present.	State: trial transcript reflects bench conferences and counsel’s agreement; no contemporaneous objection.	Vacated in part and remanded: trial court must resolve conflicting testimony and make explicit findings on waiver/acquiescence.
Whether trial court's new-trial order needed explicit findings on the right-to-be-present claim	Steen: trial court’s order denied the motion but did not address this claim or make findings.	State: trial courts often issue summary denials and appellate courts presume implicit findings.	Remand required because trial court expressly limited its findings to other claims and made no credibility determinations on this claim.

Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (recognizing merger/vacatur of felony-murder count)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Butler v. State, 309 Ga. 755 (jury resolves credibility and self-defense claims)
Zamora v. State, 291 Ga. 512 (defendant’s right to be present at critical stages, including jury selection)
Champ v. State, 310 Ga. 832 (standards for waiver and acquiescence of the right to be present; remand framework)
Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813 (acquiescence requires sufficient information to infer consent)
Lynn v. State, 310 Ga. 608 (trial court not always required to issue written findings on new-trial motions)
Anthony v. State, 311 Ga. 293 (presumption of implicit findings where appropriate)
Lord v. State, 304 Ga. 532 (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
Rouzan v. State, 308 Ga. 894 (vacatur and remand when trial court must exercise discretion and make findings)