Yancey v. State, 292 Ga. 812

Appellant Derrick Yancey was convicted of malice murder of his wife, Lynda Yancey, murder of day laborer Puluc, and unlawful possession of a firearm during a felony.
Evidence showed motive from marital problems and unusual hiring of Puluc; home crime scene with multiple gunshot wounds and cash found near Yancey, revolver at Puluc’s side.
Forensic analysis contradicted Appellant’s account: blood spatter on Appellant, money near Ms. Yancey, and weapon locations inconsistent with his statements.
Appellant voluntarily spoke to police, provided statements implicating Puluc, and later fled to Belize after bond.
Trial involved testimony and closing arguments referencing Appellant’s silence/diagram requests; expert testimony disputes arose later.
Judgment affirmed; the court held evidence sufficient and rejected asserted trial errors as non-reversible or not preserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of silence-related testimony	Yancey argues testimony commented on silence.	Yancey asserts Mallory limits on silence; improper commentary.	No reversible error; not a Mallory-type comment given circumstances.
Preservation of error on silence testimony	Yancey preserved on some occasions; others unpreserved.	Failure to object on several occasions or objection on different ground.	Preservation lacking for most claims; failure to preserve moot.
Closing remark referencing failure to draw diagram	Yancey asserts improper referencing of diagram in closing.	Evidence admissible; closing could reference admitted facts.	Not reversible; references within proper scope given admissible evidence.
Ineffective assistance—trial counsel not objecting	Counsel deficient for not objecting to silence-related testimony.	Failure to object to meritless issues does not prove deficient performance.	No ineffective assistance; objections would not have been sustained.
Hutchins testimony and new-trial expert	New expert could show prejudice; trial court erred in limiting testimony.	Counsel’s performance not deficient; new expert irrelevant to qualification of Hutchins.	No error; prejudice not shown; trial court properly limited new evidence.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for conviction)
Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 (Ga. 1991) (silence comment generally prejudicial; limited applicability here)
Whitaker v. State, 283 Ga. 521 (Ga. 2008) (custodial interrogation and Miranda concerns)
Curry v. State, 291 Ga. 446 (Ga. 2012) (silence-related questions during statement not invocational)
Rogers v. State, 290 Ga. 401 (Ga. 2012) (not invoking right to silence; statements admissible)
Gilyard v. State, 288 Ga. 800 (Ga. 2011) (failure to invoke right; questions about silence not impermissible)
Stringer v. State, 285 Ga. 842 (Ga. 2009) (defendant did not invoke right to silence; permissible inquiry)
McMichen v. State, 265 Ga. 598 (Ga. 1995) (police interview and silence-related questions not error)
Mikell v. State, 286 Ga. 434 (Ga. 2010) (closing argument references based on admissible evidence)
Banks v. State, 281 Ga. 678 (Ga. 2007) (lawyer may draw inferences in closing)
Smith v. State, 283 Ga. 237 (Ga. 2008) (defense counsel’s strategic decisions evaluated; hindsight not allowed)
Hendricks v. State, 290 Ga. 238 (Ga. 2011) (exclusion of irrelevant evidence at new-trial hearing)
Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 6 (Ga. 1999) (Mallory abrogation context; not deciding Mallory viability here)