Taylor v. State
302 Ga. 176
Ga.2017Background
- On Dec. 28, 2012, Mark Antonio Taylor entered a car dealership, took a truck with engine running, and was confronted by employee Charles Weaver. Taylor forced Weaver to drop a knife and cell phone, shot Weaver twice, and fled in the truck; surveillance video captured much of the encounter.
- Weaver died from gunshot wounds that caused lung and major artery damage leading to bleeding to death.
- Police traced the stolen truck to an Atlanta apartment, recovered the victim’s knife and the .45 handgun linked to the murder, and found the victim’s phone in the truck; Taylor made inculpatory statements during arrest and admitted at trial the victim was unarmed when shot.
- A Hall County grand jury indicted Taylor for malice murder, multiple felony murder counts, armed robbery, aggravated assault, theft by taking, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; after trial the jury convicted on all counts and the court sentenced Taylor to life without parole for malice murder (felony-murder counts vacated).
- On appeal and in the motion-for-new-trial hearing, Taylor raised: sufficiency of voir dire and juror strikes (ineffective assistance), admission of cross-examination about a prior altercation with his girlfriend (impeachment), and testimony by an investigator about self-defense (plain-error claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions | Evidence insufficient? (raised but court found otherwise) | Evidence (video, weapon, confession, phone, knife, ME report) supports convictions | Evidence was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia; convictions stand |
| Ineffective assistance: brief voir dire and failure to strike 3 jurors for cause | Trial counsel’s limited voir dire and refusal to strike Jurors 41, 52, 29 prejudiced Taylor | Counsel’s voir dire and juror-strike choices were strategic and reasonable; no juror expressed fixed bias | No deficient performance; ineffective-assistance claim fails (two‑prong test not met) |
| Admissibility of cross-examining defendant about girlfriend altercation & counsel’s failure to object to closing reference | Cross-examination about the altercation was plain error; counsel ineffective for not objecting to closing mention | Defendant opened door by testifying misleadingly about being put out of car; impeachment by contradiction permitted; closing remark nonprejudicial | Trial court did not abuse discretion in allowing impeachment; counsel not ineffective for not objecting to closing statement |
| Investigator testimony re: self-defense (plain error) | Investigator’s opinion about self-defense was improper and plain error | Defense elicited and opened the topic on cross-examination; cannot complain about error induced by defense strategy | No plain error review; defendant induced the testimony, so claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Pruitt v. State, 282 Ga. 30 (2007) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard; strong presumption in counsel’s favor)
- Francis v. State, 266 Ga. 69 (1996) (defendant testimony may be disproved on cross‑examination; impeachment by contradiction allowed)
- Parker v. State, 339 Ga. App. 285 (2016) (discussing impeachment of defendant and scope of cross‑examination)
- Woods v. State, 271 Ga. 452 (1999) (no deficiency where counsel fails to object to admissible evidence referenced in closing)