After a jury trial, Appellant Shannon Cade was found guilty of the malice and felony murder of Brittney Wells, aggravated assault, and concealing the death of another. The felony murder verdict was vacated by operation of law, and the trial court merged the aggravated assault count into the malice murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for malice murder and to a consecutive ten-year term for concealing the death of another. A motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals. *
1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdicts, the evidence shows that the 17-year-old victim dated Appellant, who was the same age. On January 14, 2009, the victim was visiting Appellant at his mother’s apartment. Appellant’s mother was not at home, but Ha Vuong (Ha) was present. He was 14 years old, lived in the same apartment complex, and frequently visited Appellant’s apartment. Ha testified that Appellant told him that the victim threatened to charge them with rape. Appellant then choked the victim until she stopped moving. With some aid from Ha, Appellant removed the victim’s clothes, wiped her body down with Pine-Sol to remove fingerprints, tied a plastic bag over her head, wrapped her in a blanket, carried her outside, and placed her in the apartment complex’s dumpster.
Later that night, Appellant and Ha informed Thaddeus Cade (Cade) about choking the victim to death. Cade, who is Appellant’s cousin and also lives in the same apartment complex, checked the dumpster himself and called his sister, who immediately notified the police regarding the body in the dumpster. Appellant claimed that, before the victim’s death, she charged at him with a knife. However,
*806
he had no defensive knife wounds, and police were unable to find a knife. Ha testified that the victim did not threaten Appellant with a knife, though she had one. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Appellant contends that the State failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, because, although one witness testified that the killing took place in the apartment at a certain address in DeKalb County, no witness testified that it occurred in Georgia. However, “ ‘[w]finesses testifying to venue need not state that the county in which the incident occurred is in the State of Georgia. (Cit.)’ [Cit.]”
Stevens v. State,
“The Court sat, and the trial was had in the County of [DeKalb], and the proof was that the crime was committed ... in the County of [DeKalb]. That the Court was sitting in the County of [DeKalb] and State of Georgia was a fact known to the Court from its own records and the public law. When therefore it was proven that the crime was committed in the County of [DeKalb], it was proven that it was committed in the County in which the Court entertained jurisdiction over it. Non constat that there is in Georgia any other County called [DeKalb]. There is no use in discussing a question like this. If such an exception were sustainable, it could be done alone by taking leave of common sense, and by yielding the solid virtue of judicial investigation to a distinction too subtle to command the least respect.” [Cits.] (Emphasis in original.)
Gresham v. State,
3. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to strike two prospective jurors for cause. However, defense counsel did not move to strike one of them, Ms. Saxon, for cause, and the trial court did not err by failing to excuse her sua sponte.
Phillips v. State,
Whether to strike a juror for cause lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. [Cit.] For a juror to be excused for cause, it must be shown that he or she holds an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendant that is so fixed and definite that the juror will be unable to set the opinion aside and decide the case based upon the evidence and the court’s charge upon the evidence. [Cit.] A prospective juror’s doubt as to his or her own impartiality does not demand as a matter of law that he or she be excused for cause. [Cit.] A conclusion on an issue of juror bias is based on findings of demeanor and credibility which are peculiarly in the trial court’s province, and those findings are to be given deference. [Cit.]
Hyde v. State,
After reviewing all of this juror’s responses, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that she “would remain impartial despite her past experience and her honestly expressed concerns about the possible impact of that experience upon her deliberations. (Cit.)” [Cit.]
Roberts v. State,
4. Appellant urges that his trial counsel was ineffective during voir dire in failing to examine Ms. Saxon and Ms. Kriseman adequately and move to strike Ms. Saxon for cause.
“In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a convicted defendant must show that counsel performed deficiently and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant such that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” [Cit.]
Higginbotham v. State,
Ms. Saxon stated that she had certain feelings about domestic violence issues but that she could probably listen and decide the case as a fair and impartial juror. Furthermore, she did not respond when the trial court asked her jury panel whether anyone had formed an opinion regarding Appellant’s guilt or innocence. Because the transcript of voir dire does not reveal that Ms. Saxon had a fixed and definite opinion as to the issue of guilt or that she would be unable to decide the case based on the evidence and the trial court’s instructions, Appellant neither overcame the strong presumption that counsel’s failure to seek Ms. Saxon’s removal constituted reasonable professional assistance, nor could Appellant show how he was prejudiced by that failure.
Higginbotham v. State,
supra at 191 (5) (a);
Hargett v. State,
“The content of trial counsel’s voir dire of the jury venire can be a matter of trial strategy. [Cit.]”
Morgan v. State,
5. At trial, the prosecutor questioned the medical examiner as to whether, if the evidence has shown that Appellant applied pressure with his hands to the victim’s neck as they moved around the room with her clawing and fighting and with him pushing her down on a bed, such evidence is consistent with the medical examiner’s findings in the autopsy. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the question went to the ultimate issue for the jury, and the trial court overruled that objection. The prosecutor then asked similar questions with regard to the consistency of his observations during the autopsy with other evidence. Appellant contends that this testimony invaded the province of the jury and improperly bolstered the testimony of other witnesses.
Expert medical testimony regarding the medical circumstances of a death is admissible where, as here, those circumstances are beyond the ken of the average layman.
Bethea v. State,
“Although an expert witness may not testify as to his opinion of the [other witnesses’] truthfulness, the [expert] witness may express an opinion as to whether medical or other objective evidence in the case is consistent with the [other witnesses’] story” [Cits.] Here, [the medical examiner] did not state his opinion as to the veracity of [any witness] or the defendant. He testified that [the victim’s] injuries, or lack thereof, were either consistent or inconsis *810 tent with the physical evidence or their testimony. Thus, his testimony was not objectionable as impermissible bolstering. [Cit.]
Gray v. State,
6. An audio recording of a prior inconsistent statement made by Cade was admitted over Appellant’s objection that Cade had not been given an opportunity to listen to it. Appellant makes the same claim on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the recording, because the State failed to comply with OCGA § 24-9-83 by giving Cade an opportunity to hear the recording and then respond to cross-examination. We initially note that the absence of the recording or its transcript in the appellate record normally “would preclude our review of the matter. [Cit.] In the present circumstances, however, the specific contents of the [recording] are not material to determining this issue, and, therefore, we do review the matter.”
Courrier v. State,
The prosecutor questioned Cade in detail about the time, place, person, and circumstances attending the former statement, including the specific inconsistency at issue. This line of questioning established an ample foundation for introduction of the prior inconsistent statement. See
Williams v. State,
Although OCGA § 24-9-83 provides that written contradictory statements that are in existence shall be shown or read to the witness, there is no similar language requiring [audio recordings of] statements to be [played for] the witness prior to their use for impeachment purposes.
Byrum v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on January 14, 2009, and the grand jury returned an indictment on March 30, 2009. The jury found Appellant guilty on January 21, 2010, and, on that same day, the trial court entered the judgments of conviction and sentences. The motion for new trial was filed on February 16, 2010, amended on December 14, 2010, and denied on January 5, 2011. Appellant filed the notice of appeal on February 3, 2011. The case was docketed in this Court for the April 2011 term and submitted for decision on the briefs.