Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Reginald Rolland's convictions for felony murder, aggravated assault, and concealing a death. The court rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, error in directing a verdict on the malice murder count, and improper limitation of cross-examination of a polygraph examiner. The court held that any error concerning the polygraph examination was harmless.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Rolland received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when counsel chose a strategy designed to preserve the right to make the concluding closing argument and did not call proposed impeachment witnesses.
- Whether the trial court erred, or Rolland was harmed, when it directed a verdict of acquittal on the malice-murder count because the indictment alleged the wrong date.
- Whether the trial court improperly limited Rolland's cross-examination of the polygraph examiner by sustaining an objection to whether the examiner's results meant that Thornton was not telling the truth.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Rolland's convictions.
Holdings
- Counsel did not perform deficiently by declining to call an impeachment witness as part of a strategy to preserve the defendant's right to make the concluding closing argument, because introducing evidence other than the defendant's oral testimony forfeited that right under the law applicable at the time of trial.
- Rolland failed to establish ineffective assistance because, even assuming deficient performance in maintaining the trial strategy, he failed to show a reasonable probability that calling either proposed witness would have changed the outcome.
- Rolland failed to show either error in or harm from the trial court's directed verdict of acquittal on the malice-murder count.
- Even assuming the trial court erred by limiting Rolland's cross-examination of the polygraph examiner, any error was harmless because the examiner repeatedly testified that the test showed a greater than 99 percent probability that Thornton was deceptive.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rolland shot Harrison repeatedly and concealed his death, and therefore supported the convictions.
Key quotations
“Finding no merit to these contentions, we affirm Rolland's convictions.” (280 Ga. at 517; 630 S.E.2d at 387)
“For these reasons, trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to call the impeachment witness as part of his strategy to preserve concluding closing arguments.” (280 Ga. at 518; 630 S.E.2d at 388)
“We conclude, however, that even if Cheek had testified at trial, there is not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.” (280 Ga. at 519; 630 S.E.2d at 389)
Factual background
Rolland was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and concealing the death of Andre Harrison after a joint trial with Georgette Thornton. The evidence showed that Rolland shot Harrison numerous times and then concealed the body; it also included testimony that Rolland was angry with Harrison over Harrison's sexual relationship with Thornton, made inconsistent statements to police, planned to sell property after the killing, and later asked how to stop a dead body from smelling. A State witness, Douglas Hollingsworth, testified that Rolland confessed, while proposed impeachment testimony from Ralph Cheek would have suggested Hollingsworth was willing to lie to obtain release from jail.
Procedural history
Rolland and Georgette Thornton were jointly indicted for murder and related offenses. Following a September 25, 2003 jury trial, Rolland was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and concealing a death; the trial court directed a verdict of acquittal on the malice-murder count and imposed life without parole for felony murder plus a consecutive ten-year sentence for concealing a death. After granting an out-of-time appeal, the trial court denied Rolland's motion for new trial, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.