Jоe E. Canada was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a сrime. Correctly treating the felony murder count as surplusage and the aggravated assault count as having merged into the malice murder count, the trial court sentenced Canada to life imprisonment for malice murder and to a consecutive five-year term for possession of a knife. See
Malcolm v. State,
1. Construed so as to support the verdict, the evidence shows that Canada inappropriately touched the viсtim’s girlfriend. An argument ensued at that time and later in the girlfriend’s mobile home. When the victim began walking towards the hallway, Canada ran at him with a steak knife from the kitchen, pushing him into the back bedroom and stabbing him several times. After two and one-half weeks in the hospital, the victim died of complications from the knife wounds. Canada relies primarily on his own testimony that the victim had a knife and was the aggressor. However, there was ample eyewitness testimony to the contrary. Although two of the eyewitnesses were somewhat equivocal, none of them gave testimony similar to that оf Canada. “ ‘Witness credibility is to be determined by the jury, OCGA § 24-9-80, as is the question of self-defense when there is conflicting evidence on the issue. (Cits.)’ [Cit.]”
Holmes v. State,
2. Canada contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in three respects. To prevail on this claim, Canada had to “show that his trial cоunsel’s performance was deficient and that, but for the deficient performance, there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would have returned a different verdict. [Cit.]”
Gammon v. State,
Canada complains that his defense counsel failed to introduce evidence of prior acts of violence committed by the victim. However, the admissibility of that evidence was in question, as trial counsel could not locate corroborating witnesses, even though they had the
*133
assistance of an investigator appointed by the trial court. See
Potter v. State,
Another alleged instance of ineffective assistance was the failure to call the defense’s medical expert to testify that the cause of the victim’s death could hаve been cardiac arrest resulting from his smoking, against medical advice, while using a nicotine patch. However, trial counsel instead elicited admissions from the State’s medical experts on cross-examination that the victim’s smoking and the condition of his arteries could possibly have contributed to his sudden death. In light of these circumstances and defense counsel’s continuing strategy of retaining the right to give the closing аrgument to the jury, the decision to avoid a battle of the experts and rely upon cross-examination of the State’s experts was not so patently unreasonable that no attorney would have chosen such tactics.
Roberts v. State,
Canada also contends that he was denied effective assistance when trial counsel withdrew their requests to charge on voluntary manslaughter and mutual combat. This withdrawal was based on the сoncern that the requests to charge were inconsistent with the claim of self-defense and would weaken the presentation of that dеfense. “Thus, counsel made a tactical decision to present a consistent complete defense to . . . criminal liability, rather than to acknowledge the possibility of guilt of a lesser offense than that charged.”
Caramon v. State,
supra at 472-473 (4) (a). Moreover, defense counsel made this decision only after consultation with Canada. See
Lowe v. State,
Accordingly, the trial court was not clearly erroneous in its finding that Canada recеived effective assistance of counsel. See Cammon v. State, supra at 474 (4).
3. Canada urges that the trial court improperly denied a motion to have the stеak knife and especially the victim’s pocketknife, found on the floor of the bedroom, tested for traces of Canada’s blood. The exact nature of this motion is not clear from the transcript of the hearing thereon. If Canada requested that the State Crime Lab con
*134
duct the tests on his behalf, the trial court had no authority to make such an order.
Kendrix v. State,
“We will uphold a trial court’s ruling on an indigent defendant’s request for funds for еxpert assistance absent an abuse of discretion. . . . [Cits.]”
Morrow v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred оn February 21,1998. The grand jury returned the indictment on September 14, 1998. The jury found Canada guilty on January 7, 1999 and, on that same day, the trial court entered the judgments of conviction and sentences. Canada filed a motion for new trial on February 3, 1999 and amended it on September 5, 2000 and August 22, 2001. The trial court deniеd that motion on October 26, 2001, and Canada filed a notice of appeal on November 21, 2001. The case was docketed in this Court on December 6, 2001 and submitted for decision on January 28, 2002.