A jury сonvicted Harold D. Hall of malice murder and robbery in connection with the beating death of 78-year-old Rachel Posey.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence presented at trial shows that Walter Ratchford drove Hall to West Point on Friday, December 1,2000, to borrow money from Posey, a friend with whom Hall had stayed in November. Hall was wearing a green windbreaker jacket, gray sweater vest, and khaki pants. Ratchfоrd waited in the car with Roy Huguley while Hall took a lock off the fence gate and went inside Posey’s house. After approximately 35 minutes, Hall came out wearing a corduroy jacket and carrying a brown plastic grocery bag that he kept with him until dropping it off later that night at Huguley’s house in LaFayette, Alabama. Despite discovering that his wallet was missing, Hall repaid a $20 debt to Huguley and subsequently gave Ratchford $11 for gas and paid cash to buy crack cocaine.
Posey’s swollen body was found lying face down on her kitchen floor on December 4. Posey had been struck on the head six or seven times and died from blunt force head injuries. Her purse and billfold,
2. Hall contends that his right to a fair trial was violated when the lеad investigator, GBI Special Agent Arthez Woodruff, gave his opinion that Hall was responsible for killing the victim and improperly bolstered the testimony of the prosecution’s key witnesses. “In order to raise on appeal an impropriety regarding the admissibility of evidence, the specific ground of objection must be made at the time the evidence is offered, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of that specific ground.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Sanchez v. State,
3. Similarly, Hall raises for the first time on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting his cross-examination of Hugu-ley and the district attorney engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during his opening statement and closing argument. Hall’s failure to make a timely objection to the trial court’s ruling and the prosecutor’s argument means he has also waived these issues on appeal. See Pinckney v. State,
4. Citing these and other actions by trial counsel, Hall asserts that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington,
(a) Hall first contends that his trial counsel’s failure to object during Agent Woodruff’s testimony was ineffective. Specifically, he challenges the agеnt’s testimony during cross-examination that “my investigation leads me to believe that Mr. Harold Dean Hall killed Ms. Posey” and “[t]here’s nothing in the investigation that reveals that [Huguley and Ratchford] aren’t tellfing] me the truth.” During the hearing on Hall’s motion for new trial, Hall did not inquire about trial counsel’s reasons for asking the questions that elicited this testimony or for failing to object to the agent’s answers, which were responsive to those questions. We conclude that Hall has not overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s actions fell within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct or affirmatively shown that the failure to object was not a conscious, deliberate trial strategy. See Morgan v. State,
(b) Hall also alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Agent Woodruff’s hearsay testimony regarding the prior consistent out-of-court statements of certain witnesses. Assuming trial counsel erred in failing to makе a hearsay objection during the State’s examination of Agent Woodruff, see Harris v. State,
(c) Hаll additionally argues that trial counsel improperly elicited opinion testimony from Agent Woodruff that the bloody clothing was the most important evidence at trial. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, trial counsel explained that he asked the questions to establish credibility with the jury because the issue wаs like “a five-hundred-pound gorilla in the courtroom” and could not be ignored. Because this line of questioning falls within the range of reasonable trial strategy, we find no deficient performance.
(е) Hall challenges trial counsel’s failure to object to the district attorney’s opening statement, his closing argument, and other alleged instances of prosecutorial conduct. Since the jury was instructed that the opening statement was not evidence, the prosecutor drew reasonable inferences from the evidence in his closing argument, and any factual discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses were matters for the jury, Hall has not overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s decisions fell within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct. See Nichols v. State,
(f) Hall contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to thoroughly investigate the case, have toothpicks tested for DNA, and present five witnesses identifiedby Hall for the defense. The trial court found that Hall failed to identify how a more thorough trial preparation would have resulted in his trial counsel performing differently at trial or in a more favorable result. At the end of the State’s case, trial counsel stated that he or his investigator had spoken with five potential witnesses for the defense, he believed their testimony would be of limited or no value, it was his opinion that they should not be called as witnesses, and he had discussed the issue with his client. When questioned by the trial court, Hall said that he agreed with his lawyer. The record also shows that trial counsel brought out during cross-examination that Huguley frequently chewed on toothpicks and toothpicks were found on the floor of Posey’s house. We conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that trial
(g) Hall next claims he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to use prior inconsistent statements to impeach witnesses at trial and argue the strongest points of the defense in closing argument. The trial transcript shows that trial counsel brought out inconsistencies between the witnesses’ trial testimоny and their statements to police concerning their discovery of the bloody clothing and pointed out those inconsistencies during closing argument. Since trial counsel’s actions were a matter of trial strategy and within the range of reasonable professional conduct, Hall has failed to shоw that his counsel performed deficiently. See Jimmerson,
(h) As further instances of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, Hall enumerates the following omissions of trial counsel: failure to move for a change of venue based on pretrial publicity; failure to move to strike two jurors, a legal secretary and former jury foreman, for cause; failure to object to the chain of custody related to the victim’s bloodstained card and an item of clothing that witnesses identified as belonging to Hall; failure to object to Agent Woodruff sitting at the prosecutor’s table after the rule of sequestration was invoked; failure to object to a crime scene analyst’s expert testimony that it was his opinion based on the blood splatter that most of the blows wеre inflicted on Posey while she was on the ground; and failure to move for a directed verdict of acquittal. We conclude that trial counsel did not perform deficiently in failing to make objections that had no merit based on the facts or law. See Hayes v. State,
(i) Finally, Hall contends that trial counsel failed to properly investigate and present evidence of Hall’s incompetency to stand
5. The record does not support Hall’s final сlaim that the trial court denied him a fair trial by rejecting his request for the second psychiatric examination and determining Hall was able to understand the criminal charges against him. A defendant has the burden of proving incompetency to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence. Traylor v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crime occurred on December 1,2000, and the Troup County grand jury indicted Hall on February 6, 2001. The jury found Hall guilty of malice murder, felony murder, and robbery on February 21, 2002, and the trial court sentencеd him to life imprisonment on the malice murder charge and a consecutive 20-year term on the robbery charge. The felony murder charge was vacated by operation of law. Hall filed a motion for new trial on February 21, 2002, and an amended motion for new trial on January 3, 2008. A hearing was held on December 20, 2011, and the motion was denied on May 4, 2012. On the same day, the trial court granted Hall’s motion to represent himself without the aid of counsel, finding he had made a knowing and intelligent decision to waive appellate counsel. Proceeding pro se, Hall filed a notice of appeal on May 23, 2012. The case was docketed in this Court for the January 2013 term and submitted for decision on the briefs.