Notable Opinions: April 29, 2019

The State v. Newman (S19A0374)

Newman holds that a defendant who argues ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request a jury charge fails to show the "plain error" necessary for a new trial if he cannot demonstrate the error negatively affected the proceedings.

In State v. Newman the Court reversed the grant of a new trial to a man convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm. The trial court granted the motion for new trial on the grounds that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to request a jury instruction on defense of habitation (see OCGA § 16-3-23), and the court itself erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte.

Because Newman failed to object to the failure to give the instruction, the trial court's decision not to do so does not warrant a new trial unless it was plain error. See State v. Johnson, – Ga. – (Case No. S18A1275, decided Feb. 18, 2019)

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Melton held that even if Newman had presented enough evidence to warrant the defense of habitation instruction (doubtful, since he essentially contended at trial that the shooting was an accident), he had failed to show that not giving the charge negatively effected the outcome of the trial since there was substantial evidence of guilt and he had repeatedly changed his version of events.


Other Cases

The Court also upheld murder convictions and life sentences in the following cases:

S19A0012. KOONCE v. THE STATE
S19A0019. OLIVER v. THE STATE
S19A0031. HART v. THE STATE
S19A0100. LUCKIE v. BERRY
S19A0129. WOFFORD v. THE STATE
S19A0138. MOORE v. THE STATE
S19A0158. OUTLER v. THE STATE
S19A0174. BELL v. THE STATE
S19A0243. PARKS v. THE STATE
S19A0361. LAY v. THE STATE



Attorney Discipline
S19Y0645. IN THE MATTER OF LAKEISHA TENNILLE GANTT
S19Y0980. IN THE MATTER OF DON SMART