Appellant Shamell A. Stroud was convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the 2010 stabbing death of victim Wayne Jackson. Stroud now appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior felonies committed by Stroud; and that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance in failing to object to the prior crimes evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the evidence shows that on the evening of September 29, 2010, Jackson approached Stroud as he sat at a nightclub bar. After talking for some time, the two left together in Jackson’s car, stopped at a different club for a short time, and then drove to Jackson’s apartment.
At 11:31 p.m., the alarm button at Jackson’s apartment was activated. Police arrived to find the front door open and Jackson lying on the floor in a pool of blood next to a bloody kitchen knife. No one else was present in the apartment. There were beer and liquor bottles scattered throughout the apartment, and a male pornographic film was playing in the master bedroom. Blood was observed throughout the apartment, including a large amount in the foyer, more blood drops and stains in the living room and kitchen, and blood spatter on the master bedroom wall and bed. An overturned nightstand, a displaced mattress, and a second knife with its handle missing evidenced a struggle in the bedroom. Jackson had suffered multiple stab wounds to his torso and extremities, including at least one stab wound to the chest, two stab wounds to the back, and various defensive injuries, several which were indicative of efforts to grasp the blade end of a knife. A palm print from the doorknob of the apartment was later matched to that of Stroud’s right palm.
At trial, Stroud testified in his own defense. Though continuing to assert that the stabbing had been committed in self-defense, Stroud’s testimony was inconsistent in many respects with his statements to police; among otherthings, Stroud claimed that Jackson had “basically held him hostage” and attacked him with a knife when Stroud had spurned his advances, and that he believed he was fighting for his life when he wrested the knife from Jackson. He conceded that he had lied to investigators about the presence of a third person in the apartment and attributed the discrepancies in his earlier statements to being “so stressed out” at the time of his interview. Contrary to the evidence from Jackson’s autopsy, Stroud testified that he had stabbed Jackson only once in the back and only two times in total. He admitted on cross-examination that he had stepped on Jackson as he lay in the foyer, leaving a footprint on Jackson’s body as he fled the apartment. Stroud was also questioned on both direct and cross-examination about past crimes and acknowledged he had been convicted of felony theft on four prior occasions, beginning in 2003.
Contrary to Stroud’s contention, the evidence described above was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Stroud was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia,
II.
Stroud contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his four felony theft convictions. This evidence — consisting of certified copies of four convictions, two for theft by taking and two for theft by receiving — was introduced during the defense’s case-in-chief. Prior to calling the defense’s first witness, defense counsel — anticipating that Stroud would elect to testify — sought a ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence of his prior convictions. While arguing that the convictions were more prejudicial than probative, counsel conceded that, if Stroud were to testify, the court “can’t keep all the convictions out,” and thus urged the court to admit evidence of only “one or two of [them].” The court ruled that, if Stroud were to testify, the two most recent of the prior convictions — both for theft by receiving — would be admissible for impeachment purposes.
The defense first presented three character witnesses, all of whom testified to Stroud’s reputation for “peacefulness.” Stroud then took the stand and, on direct examination, acknowledged his two prior theft-by-receiving convictions. Also during his direct examination, when questioned about whether he had attempted to render aid to the victim, Stroud testified that “if I could have stopped the situation, I would have. I’m a good person, I’m not a bad person.”
At the conclusion of Stroud’s direct examination, the State moved for leave to introduce evidence of the remaining two convictions, on the ground that, by testifying that he was “a good person,” Stroud had placed his character in evidence. Defense counsel essentially conceded the issue, responding, “I’m not going to argue that.” The trial court ruled that the two remaining theft-by-taking convictions would be admissible, and the State offered evidence of all four convictions during its cross-examination of Stroud.
Though Stroud now asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the prior convictions evidence, he is precluded from claiming error by virtue of his acquiescence in the admission of this evidence in the trial court.
Even assuming these rulings were properly preserved, the trial court did not err in admitting Stroud’s prior theft-by-receiving convictions because this evidence was admissible under former OCGA § 24-9-84.1 (a) (2).
[ejvidence that the defendant has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment of one year or more under the law under which the defendant was convicted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting the evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant.
Thus, if the defendant testified, evidence of prior felony convictions was admissible for impeachment purposes upon the trial court’s determination that its probative value substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. See Childs v. State,
Regarding the remaining two convictions, we assume for the sake of argument that Stroud’s remark that he was “a good person” did not open the door to the admission of these convictions under former OCGA § 24-9-20 (b).
III.
Stroud’s final contention is that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the admission of the prior crimes evidence. To establish 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,
With regard to the theft-by-receiving convictions, because we have concluded that there was no error in the court’s admission of this evidence, we cannot say that trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to challenge the court’s ruling regarding its admissibility. See Woods v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The victim was killed on September 29, 2010. On December 14, 2010, Stroud was indicted by a Fulton County grand jury for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. At the conclusion of a jury trial held November 1-4, 2011, Stroud was found guilty on all counts. Stroud was sentenced to life imprisonment for the malice murder count and a consecutive five-year term for the knife-possession count; the remaining verdicts merged or were vacated by operation of law. See Malcolm v. State,
Miranda v. Arizona,
Because this case was tried before the January 1, 2013 effective date of the new Georgia Evidence Code, see Ga. L. 2011, pp. 99, 214, § 101, “plain error” review under OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) is not available for these claims in any event.
The analogous provision under the new Evidence Code is OCGA § 24-6-609 (a) (1).
At the time of trial, that Code section provided that a defendant who testified “shall be sworn as any other witness and may be examined and cross-examined as any other witness.” The analogous provision under the new Evidence Code is OCGA § 24-5-506 (b).
We note that Lindsey and Jones were decided under a pre-2005 version of former OCGA § 24-9-20 (b), which was more restrictive regarding impeachment of a criminal defendant’s character than the version applicable at the time of Stroud’s trial. Compare Ga. L. 2005, pp. 20, 27, § 14 (amended version without such language), with Ga. L. 1973, pp. 292, 294, § 2 (prior version including such language). See also Chandler v. State,
Because any error in the admission of this evidence was harmless, we need not decide whether these convictions could have been properly referenced in the State’s cross-examination of Stroud’s character witnesses, as the State did not seek to do so. See generally Paul S. Milich, Ga. Rules of Evidence § 11:4 (noting rule, under both old and new Evidence Code, that defendant’s character witnesses may be cross-examined about their knowledge of a prior conviction if such conviction rebutted the “specific character trait” as to which the witness testified).