Wallace v. State, 303 Ga. 34

Victim Alex Delgado-Ramos was shot and killed in a CVS parking lot on March 4, 2012; Wallace was indicted and convicted of murder and related firearm offenses; sentenced to life plus consecutive 5 years.
State’s key witness: Delgado’s girlfriend, Brittney Zevenbergen, who testified Wallace pointed a gun, ordered Delgado to empty pockets, and two shots followed; Wallace fled.
Wallace’s trial testimony: he bought marijuana earlier, returned to CVS to get money back, a struggle occurred over a gun, and the gun fired during the tussle; medical examiner testified the shot was fired from at least 30 inches (no close-range stippling).
Jury deliberated ~9 hours over two days; foreperson reported partial agreement but a lone holdout refusing further deliberation was excused (with defense counsel’s urging) and replaced by the first alternate; jury later convicted on all counts.
Two witnesses (Ross and Samuel) refused to testify for the State and were held in contempt; the trial court informed the jury of that fact over Wallace’s renewed objection.
Wallace moved for a new trial arguing (1) inadequate inquiry before replacing the holdout juror, (2) prejudicial remarks about contempt-holding witnesses, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for cross-examination preparation; trial court denied the motion and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of inquiry before replacing holdout juror	Trial court failed to conduct sufficient inquiry before excusing and replacing a lone holdout juror	Trial court acted within discretion; moreover Wallace urged excusal and thus waived error	Waived by affirmative conduct; alternatively, no abuse of discretion in refusing to recall dismissed juror the next day
Court informing jury that two State witnesses were held in contempt for refusing to testify	Telling the jury that Ross and Samuel were held in contempt introduced prejudicial and irrelevant information	The remarks referred only to undisputed facts and did not prejudice Wallace; objection not preserved so reviewed for plain error	No plain error: better practice to avoid the remark, but Wallace did not show probable effect on outcome
Ineffective assistance for inadequate cross-exam preparation of Zevenbergen	Trial counsel failed to review prior statements and obtain phone records that could impeach Zevenbergen	Trial counsel did review prior statements; record lacks the phone records and Wallace offers only speculation; trial court found counsel prepared and effective	Strickland claim fails: no showing of deficient performance or resulting prejudice
Sufficiency of the evidence (independent review)	N/A — Wallace did not challenge sufficiency	State: evidence supports convictions	Court independently reviewed and found evidence sufficient to sustain convictions

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Adkins v. State, 301 Ga. 153 (affirmative waiver/invited-error doctrine)
Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680 (waiver and review principles)
Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268 (invited error; party cannot complain of result it urged)
Williams v. State, 272 Ga. 828 (abuse-of-discretion standard for substituting alternate juror)
Semega v. State, 302 Ga. App. 879 (alternate jurors should not replace minority holdouts merely for disagreement)
Moon v. State, 288 Ga. 508 (removal of juror not an abuse when impartiality/truthfulness concerns exist)
Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (limits and cautions on recalling discharged jurors)
Hendricks v. State, 283 Ga. 470 (discussing relevance and harm from a witness’s refusal to testify)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
Bozzie v. State, 302 Ga. 704 (plain-error standard and burden to show probable effect on outcome)