Wright v. State, 296 Ga. 276

In 2008, Wright and two accomplices robbed Lard; Brown fired a shot and one firearm casing linked to subsequent crimes was recovered.
On June 20, 2008, Wright and Brown targeted four Hispanic men for a robbery; Brown carried a .40 caliber pistol and participated in the attempted robbery.
During the encounter in Sedona Falls, Carbajal was shot and killed by Brown; Wright drove away after signaling Brown and Stokes to return to the car.
Mora and Turner pursued Wright’s car; Turner confronted the occupants; a .40 caliber pistol recovered later matched the cartridge at the Lard and Carbajal scenes.
Brown later testified about Wright’s involvement; at Wright’s trial, Brown claimed Wright had foreknowledge, while at a prior hearing he testified differently.
Stokes, who pled guilty to murder and armed robbery, testified at Wright’s trial but claimed his pleas were coerced; his plea transcript was read to impeach him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of 2004 Norris incident evidence	Norris act used to prove character; improper under 404(b).	Similar acts show course of conduct and bent of mind; admissible.	Court did not abuse discretion; similarities supported admissibility.
Use of Stokes plea transcript for impeachment	Premature or improper; violates confrontation rights.	Transcript admissible under impeachment and refreshment rules.	Admissible under 24-9-82; confrontation issue not preserved.
Sufficiency of evidence to support guilt	No direct identification; insufficient for PW credibility.	Eyewitness testimony and party liability support conviction.	Evidence sufficient to convict; jury credibility preserved.
Effective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to call witnesses and introduce certain records.	No showing of prejudice; strategic decisions reasonable.	No reversible error; defense lacked demonstrated prejudice.

Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. 106 (2011) (prior inconsistent statements admissible; no denial requirement)
Wilkins v. State, 291 Ga. 483 (2012) (impeachment standards for former statements; coherence with 24-9-82)
Mathis v. State, 279 Ga. 100 (2005) (affirmative standard for admitting evidence; Bruton rationale)
Hall v. State, 292 Ga. 701 (2013) (preservation and waiver of evidentiary objections)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (inadmissibility of antagonist statements in joint trial)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (requirements for knowing, voluntary, intelligent guilty plea)
State v. Evans, 265 Ga. 332 (1995) (plea transcript impeachment limitations and redaction considerations)