Grant v. State

295 Ga. 126 (Ga. 2014) · Supreme Court of Georgia · April 22, 2014 · No. S14A0634

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Devon Grant’s convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime arising from the shooting death of Kattilius Middlebrooks. The court rejected claims involving undisclosed Brady material, courtroom closure, jury communications and requests to rehear testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that Grant failed to establish reversible error or prejudice under the applicable standards.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the Court
Thompson, Chief Justice
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Decision date
April 22, 2014
Docket number
S14A0634
Procedural posture
Grant appealed from the denial of his motion for new trial following his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
Standard of review
The sufficiency of the evidence was reviewed under Jackson v. Virginia. The ineffective-assistance claims were reviewed under Strickland v. Washington, with deference to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous and de novo review of legal conclusions. The trial court's decision whether to allow the jury to rehear evidence was reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Georgia Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Devon Grant v. The State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureineffective assistanceappellate procedureevidencepreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate practiceconstitutional lawevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Grant's convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
  2. Whether the State's failure to disclose a videotaped witness interview and related police report violated Brady v. Maryland and required a new trial.
  3. Whether the trial court's closure of the courtroom to inquire about a possible deal with a witness was reviewable when Grant made no contemporaneous objection.
  4. Whether the trial court violated the procedures governing jury communications by failing to mark jury notes as exhibits and by denying requests to rehear testimony.
  5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Batson challenge, failing to object to the denial of a leniency charge, and failing to adequately prepare for trial or interview potential witnesses.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Grant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
  2. Even assuming the undisclosed interview and police report were favorable evidence that the State suppressed, Grant was not entitled to relief because he failed to show a reasonable probability that earlier disclosure would have produced a different trial outcome.
  3. Grant's claim that the trial court improperly closed the courtroom was not preserved for direct appeal because he made no objection to the closure at trial.
  4. The trial court's failure to mark the jury notes as exhibits and its refusal to allow the jury to rehear the requested testimony did not constitute reversible error.
  5. Grant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on any asserted ground and was not entitled to a new trial.

Key quotations

To prevail on a Brady claim, appellant must show that the State possessed evidence favorable to him, that he did not possess the evidence and could not obtain it himself with reasonable diligence, that the State suppressed the favorable evidence, and that, if the evidence had been disclosed to him, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. (section 2)
It is within the trial court’s discretion to decide whether to allow a jury at its own instigation to rehear evidence after deliberations begin (section 4)
In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance, appellant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced him such that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the deficiency, the outcome of his trial would have been different. (section 5)

Factual background

Grant and Kattilius Middlebrooks argued at an apartment gambling gathering after Grant was accused of not paying a two-dollar entrance fee. As Grant left, he threatened to kill Middlebrooks. Two days later, Grant approached Middlebrooks while he was playing dice and shot him in the back of the neck with a dark semiautomatic pistol. An eyewitness heard Grant threaten to kill Middlebrooks, saw him approach with the pistol, and heard him later say that he had told Middlebrooks he was going to kill him; Grant's cousin also testified that Grant admitted shooting someone named Deebo over a dice game.

Procedural history

A Glynn County grand jury indicted Grant on March 19, 2008. Following a jury trial held June 22 and 24-26, 2009, he was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; the remaining charges were merged or vacated by operation of law. He received a life sentence for malice murder and a consecutive five-year sentence for firearm possession. His motion for new trial was amended and denied on February 13, 2013, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…