Strozier v. State, 277 Ga. 78

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Bobby Strozier’s convictions for felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm-possession offenses arising from a crime spree involving two locations. The court rejected challenges concerning the appointment of the trial judge, sufficiency of the evidence, indictment variance, severance, jury impartiality, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. A challenge to the sufficiency of the order appointing the senior judge was untimely because it was first raised in the motion for new trial and therefore presented nothing for review.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support Strozier's felony-murder conviction because his active participation in the aggravated assault, including holding Mitchell at gunpoint and threatening her, went beyond mere presence.
3. Strozier failed to preserve his challenge to the indictment's identification of the victim because he did not raise it by demurrer before pleading to the merits or by motion in arrest of judgment after conviction; in any event, the name variance was not fatal because both names referred to the same person.
4. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Strozier guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all offenses for which he was convicted.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever the offenses arising from the apartment and those arising from the crack house because they were part of a continuing course of conduct and a single crime spree, and the jury was able to distinguish the evidence and apply the law to each offense.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying severance of Strozier's trial from Hubbard's because the defendants acted in concert and the fact that the evidence was stronger against one defendant did not require severance.
7. The possible inclusion of jurors who may have seen Strozier in jail clothing did not require a new jury panel because the jurors denied seeing him or any person in bright clothing and stated they could be fair; even a disqualified juror would require a challenge for cause rather than dismissal of the entire panel.
8. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to disqualify the entire jury panel or conduct a separate panel examination based on a bystander's report that a potential juror said someone would go to jail.
9. Strozier failed to establish ineffective assistance because he did not show prejudice from counsel's failure to object to the appointment of the trial judge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the convictions were void because the order appointing the senior judge who presided over the trial was insufficient under OCGA § 15-1-9.2(b).
2. Whether the evidence was insufficient to support Strozier's felony-murder conviction because he was merely present during the aggravated assault on Mitchell.
3. Whether the indictment's misidentification of Derek Jones as Derek John required a directed verdict or otherwise invalidated the aggravated-assault conviction.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support all convictions.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to sever the offenses or Strozier's trial from Hubbard's.
6. Whether possible exposure to Strozier in jail clothing required a new jury panel.
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a separate hearing regarding a potential juror's alleged statement that someone would go to jail.
8. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the appointment of the trial judge.

Disposition

affirmed