Wright v. State, 300 Ga. 185

Background

On December 17, 2006, Cornelius Wright shot and killed Mitchieano Carmichael after prior confrontations in an Augusta neighborhood; several eyewitnesses saw Wright chase and shoot Carmichael multiple times, including firing additional rounds as Carmichael lay wounded.
Wright left the scene, briefly hid in a motel, then fled to New York; he was later identified by eyewitnesses, apprehended, returned to Richmond County, and tried.
A jury convicted Wright of malice murder, felony murder, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and aggravated assault; he received life for malice murder plus consecutive terms totaling 30 years for other counts.
At trial Wright testified and claimed self-defense; on direct he mentioned not contacting police after an earlier altercation because he lacked his cell phone and left town out of fear.
On cross-examination the State questioned Wright about his pre-arrest silence; the trial court allowed the questions because Wright’s counsel had opened the topic on direct.
The trial court excluded proposed evidence of third-party violent acts by the victim (proffered to support self-defense) and refused a jury charge on voluntary manslaughter; Wright appealed, arguing ineffective assistance for failure to object to pre-arrest silence questioning, erroneous exclusion of the third-party-violence evidence, and denial of the manslaughter charge.

Issues

Issue	Wright's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to cross-examination about Wright’s pre-arrest silence	Trial counsel should have objected to prosecutor’s comments on pre-arrest silence; failure prejudiced Wright	Counsel was not ineffective because defense opened the door on direct; any objection would be meritless and overruled; alternatively, no prejudice given the evidence	Affirmed: no ineffective assistance — questions were permissible after defense opened the door; even if improper, no prejudice shown
Whether trial court erred in excluding evidence of victim’s prior violent acts against third parties to support self-defense	Evidence of victim’s violent acts should have been admitted to show justification	Court ruled defendant failed to make required prima facie showing of justification; eyewitnesses did not support claim that victim assaulted Wright	Affirmed: exclusion proper—defendant failed to show victim was aggressor or that Wright honestly defended himself
Whether trial court erred by refusing jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter	Wright requested voluntary manslaughter charge as lesser-included offense based on provocation	State argued no evidence of sudden, violent, irresistible passion as required for voluntary manslaughter instruction	Affirmed: no manslaughter charge — record lacked evidence of irresistible passion due to provocation
Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions	Wright argued self-defense and factual disputes	State relied on eyewitness testimony that Wright shot first, chased, and executed additional shots at the victim	Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
Doyle v. State, 291 Ga. 729 (door-opening permits cross-examination on pre-arrest silence)
Chandler v. State, 261 Ga. 402 (admitting specific violent acts to support self-defense under former Georgia law)
Tarpley v. State, 298 Ga. 442 (requirements for admitting prior violent acts and application of new Evidence Code)
Walden v. State, 267 Ga. 162 (defendant must show victim assaulted him and defendant honestly acted in self-defense)
Walker v. State, 281 Ga. 521 (distinction between self-defense and provocation for voluntary manslaughter)
Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 (evidentiary rule applicable to trials before Georgia’s new Evidence Code)