Aрpellant Willie Moses Green was indicted and tried for malice murder and related crimes in connection with the November 2004 stabbing death of Marita Bradshaw. At trial, Green asserted an insanity defense, which the jury rejected, finding Green guilty but mentally ill. Green now appeals, contеnding that the trial court erred on two occasions in its response to courtroom outbursts by Green and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the evidence shows that on November 20, 2004, Cobb County police responded to a 911 call regarding a domestic dispute in progress outside the home where Green resided with his fiancée,
Soon after his arrest, Green underwent a court-ordered competency evaluation by forensic psychologist Dr. Kevin Richards, who determined that Green was incompetent due to a severe mental disorder. As a result, Green was committed for treatment at Central State Hospital, a maximum-security State mental health facility, where he remained until June 2008, when another Centrаl State psychologist, Dr. Patricia Marterer, determined that Green had regained competency, and Green was returned to Cobb County for trial. Green contested the competency determination, and in April 2009, a competency trial was held, at which a jury found Grеen competent to stand trial.
During jury selection at his subsequent criminal trial, after having been admonished several times for being disruptive, Green began a rambling colloquy, and exclaimed that he had been “committed at Central State Hospital for the rest of my life” and that hе “was too dangerous to live in society” Deputies escorted Green from the courtroom, and the trial judge explained to the prospective jurors that Green was being removed because of his outburst, but would be allowed to return when he had calmed down. Greеn’s counsel moved for a mistrial, which was denied. At the conclusion of voir dire, as the selected jurors were being announced, Green interrupted, telling the jurors that they could send him to prison, that he had been mistreated at the hospital, and that he was worried about other patients being mistreated in similar fashion. Green was again escorted from the courtroom, at which point the court told the jury, “I think it only fair, ladies and gentlemen, that you know we had a competency trial before a jury for Mr. Green about two weeks ago and he was found competent to stand trial. That’s why he’s here.” There was no objection to this comment.
The State presented testimony from the lead investigator regarding his post-arrest interview of Green, as well as a recording of the interview itself. In the interview, Green told the investigator that he had stabbed the victim after she had asked him to leave her home. Green also reported that the victim had given him a shirt that gave him a rash all over his body; that she contaminated his food; and that she caused lightning to emanate from his posterior when she spoke or took such actions as flipping a light switch or opening a soda can. The prosecution also presented testimony from a Cobb County sheriff’s deputy, to whom Green had remarked in reference to the crime, “I know what I did and I don’t have remorse.”
Green himself testifiеd at trial that every time the victim spoke, hit a light switch, or expelled gas, lightning would emanate from his posterior; he attributed this power to “witchcraft or roots or something.” Green also testified that he had been mentally ill for 25 years and that, though he was currently taking medicatiоn, he had not been doing so at the time of the crime. He testified further that the victim had been jealous, accusing him of “messing around on the job,” that he had tried to get away from the victim but she would not let him go, and that he had killed the victim after having “lost it.” He stated at one point thаt he did not remember the day of the killing but later stated that he remembered calling the police and indicated that he was so “out of it” that he “probably didn’t stab her but one time” though he believed he had “stabbed her a hundred times.” At numerous points during his testimony, Green expressed his belief that the jury could not convict him because the autopsy photographs of the victim did not depict her face. He also testified that he knew it was wrong to take another person’s life.
The defense also presented the testimony of Dr. Richards, who had conducted Green’s initial competency evaluation in 2005 and
In rebuttal, the prosecution offered the testimony of Dr. Mar-terer, the clinical psychologist who had conducted Green’s competency evaluation at Centrаl State in 2008. Dr. Marterer testified to her conclusion that although Green did have delusions regarding the victim, they were long-held and chronic and were not the precipitating factor in the killing. Rather, Dr. Marterer testified, in her opinion, Green had killed the victim because of his angеr at being put out of the victim’s home.
Green does not dispute that the evidence presented at trial and summarized above is sufficient to sustain his convictions. Nevertheless, we have carried out an independent review of that evidence, and conclude that it was legally sufficient to enable a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Green was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Green contends that the trial court errеd in denying his motion for mistrial after the first of Green’s outbursts before the jury “Measures to be taken as a result of demonstrations and outbursts which occur during the course of a trial are matters within the trial court’s discretion unless a new trial is necessary to [ejnsure a fair trial.” Messer v. State,
Here, the trial judge was walking the fine line of accommodating Green’s right to be present at аll critical stages of his trial, see, e.g., Sammons v. State,
3. Green next contends that the trial court erred when, in response to Green’s subsequent outburst, it informed the jury that Grеen’s competency to stand trial had been recently adjudicated, without simultaneously instructing the jury regarding the legal distinction between competency and sanity. We find no reversible error. As an initial matter, because Green’s trial counsel failed to interpose аn objection to the court’s statement on this or any other ground, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review. See, e.g., King v. State,
But even if the issue had been preserved, we would find no reversible error. Any comment from the trial court as to the distinction between sanity and competency would have been confusing and out of context at that early stage of the proceedings, where the parties had yet to even give their opening statements. Even assuming the judge had erred in making this comment without, at the same time, distinguishing competency from sanity, there was no harm to Green insofar as the jurors were educated on the distinction between these two concepts as the trial unfolded. Specifically, Dr. Richards exрlained without contradiction that competency refers to one’s mental state at the time of trial, and “doesn’t have anything to do with what [a person’s] mental state was when they did what they’re accused of doing.” Accordingly, any initial misimpressions the jury may have had as а result of the trial court’s comment would have been resolved during the course of the trial and would thus have been no cause for reversal.
4. In his final enumeration, Green contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We again disagree. To estаblish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his counsel’s performance was professionally deficient and that such deficient performance resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Strickland v. Washington,
Here, Green alludes vaguely to “numerous matters” he raised at the motion for new trial hearing in relation to his counsel’s performance at trial. This Court is not required, however, to cull the record in search of support for an appellant’s claims, see Wallace v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crimes were committed on November 20, 2004. On March 3, 2005, a Cobb County grand jury indicted Green for malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and aggravated assault. Following a more than three-year period of incompetency, during which Green was committed at a State psychiatric facility, Green was determined to be competent and returned to Cobb County for trial. At the conclusion of a trial held May 11-14, 2009, the jury found Green guilty but mentally ill as to all charges. The trial court sentenced Green to life imprisonment for malice murder; the felony murder count was vacated by оperation of law, and the aggravated assault count merged into the malice murder count. See Malcolm v. State,
Contrary to Green’s contention, we do not view the court’s statement as an improper expression of the judge’s opinion “as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused,” OCGA § 17-8-57 (2009), which, at the time of Green’s 2009 trial, would have constituted reversible error even absent an objection. See State v. Gardner,