Hill v. State, 276 Ga. 220

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Cantrell Hill’s convictions for felony murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The court rejected challenges concerning circumstantial-evidence instructions, constructive or joint possession, ineffective assistance of counsel, and testimony about Hill’s prior probation violation.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Hill guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
2. When the State's case is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence, the trial court does not err by failing to give a circumstantial-evidence charge sua sponte absent a written request.
3. Hill's conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime did not require proof that Hill personally had actual possession of the weapon; possession by an accomplice, including carrying the weapon or being within arm's reach of it, could support the conviction.
4. Hill failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to present testimony from two unavailable former cell mates because Hill, after consulting with counsel, personally waived a continuance and elected to proceed, and the proposed testimony was cumulative of impeachment evidence already presented.
5. Hill failed to establish ineffective assistance from counsel's failure to object to testimony about his boot-camp placement and the probation violation underlying it because Hill opened the door to the subject and counsel's decision not to object was a reasonable tactical strategy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Hill's convictions for felony murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
2. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to give, sua sponte, a charge on the standard of proof applicable to circumstantial evidence when the State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence and Hill made no written request.
3. Whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury that Hill could be convicted of the firearm offense based on actual or constructive possession, including joint possession, rather than requiring proof of his own actual possession.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure testimony from two former cell mates of a prosecution witness or to obtain a continuance after those witnesses became unavailable.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor elicited testimony about Hill's probation violation and resulting boot-camp placement.

Disposition

affirmed