Durden v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Kendra Durden’s convictions for murder, felony murder, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The court rejected challenges based on insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, crime-scene photographs, victim testimony, and an unsolicited reference to a polygraph examination. The court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Durden guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder, felony murder, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
2. Durden failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because she did not prove deficient performance or resulting prejudice, and the record did not substantiate her claims concerning counsel’s qualifications, investigation of emotional factors, or courtroom professionalism.
3. The crime-scene photographs depicting the victim as found at the murder scene were relevant and properly admitted.
4. The victim’s mother’s testimony describing her telephone call with the victim before the murder was relevant and did not exceed acceptable boundaries by unfairly prejudicing Durden or constituting improper victim-impact testimony.
5. The trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a mistrial after a witness spontaneously stated that he had taken a lie-detector test.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Durden was a willing participant in the charged crimes.
2. Whether Durden received ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s qualifications, failure to investigate purported psychological abuse and emotional factors, and alleged unprofessional courtroom conduct.
3. Whether crime-scene photographs depicting the victim as found at the scene were relevant and properly admitted.
4. Whether testimony from the victim’s mother about a telephone call with the victim before the murder was unduly prejudicial or improper victim-impact testimony during the guilt/innocence phase.
5. Whether an unsolicited reference to a polygraph examination required a mistrial.

Disposition

affirmed