Walker v. State
294 Ga. 752
Ga.2014Background
- Walker was convicted of felony murder while in the commission of attempted armed robbery, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during a felony, related to the killing of Algreen and robbery of Looper; the killings occurred Jan. 22, 2006; Walker and co‑participants planned the crime after attempting to obtain crack cocaine and money from Algreen and Looper.
- Co‑defendants Kinlaw and Lavant participated; Lavant drove, Kinlaw provided a pistol, and Walker led the home invasion with a mask; Looper testified she saw Kinlaw’s distinctive front‑teeth gap.
- Walker fled with Kinlaw after the shooting; they attempted to establish an alibi in Florida, including a store surveillance appearance and purchasing parakeets.
- Walker testified in his defense; during trial, the State impeached him with three prior convictions; the defense sought to limit impeachment under OCGA § 24‑9‑84.1(a)(2).
- At trial, the court admitted certain impeachment and prior conviction evidence; Walker moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied; on appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgments.
- Division 2(b) concurrence by Hunstein only as to that division, with the remainder of the court affirming the convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effective assistance of counsel—voir dire objection | Walker argues counsel failed to object to a prosecution‑led hypothetical during voir dire. | Walker contends the hypothetical could prejudice jurors and constituted deficient performance. | No deficient performance; question did not prejudge the trial, and failure to object did not change the outcome. |
| Impeachment by prior convictions | Walker claims trial counsel erred in not objecting to admitting his prior convictions for impeachment. | Convictions admissible where probative value outweighs prejudice; no required showing of dishonesty. | Admission proper under statute; no reversible prejudice shown. |
| Impeachment scope—Looper’s prior testimony | Counsel should have impeached Looper with her first‑trial testimony identifying Walker. | Counsel pursued a strategy to emphasize Looper’s subsequent identification and broad consistency with Walker’s alibi. | Counsel’s cross‑examination reasonable; no deficient performance. |
| Elicitation of co‑defendants’ potential sentences | Counsel should have pressed Lavant and Kinlaw on specific prison‑time calculations. | Counsel elicited testimony about significant reductions in exchange for testimony; further questioning speculative. | No reasonable probability the outcome would differ; strategy within reasonable conduct. |
| Impeachment strategy for multiple witnesses | Walker contends broader impeachment would yield stronger defense. | Counsel conducted extensive impeachment; different strategy not automatically deficient. | Counsel’s approach within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard on appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; reasonable performance presumed)
- Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782 (Ga. 1985) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance—deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109 (Ga. 2012) (voir dire and caution against prejudgment by hypothetical questions)
- Waters v. State, 248 Ga. 355 (Ga. 1981) (limits on prejudicial impact of improper questions in voir dire)