Henry v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Brandon Henry’s convictions for malice murder, burglary, and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient and that Henry failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged inadequate communication, investigation, cross-examination, and failure to object.

Holdings

1. The evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Henry was guilty of malice murder.
2. Henry failed to show inadequate communication by his lawyer or prejudice resulting therefrom.
3. Henry failed to show deficient performance or prejudice from the alleged failure to investigate witnesses.
4. Henry failed to show deficient performance or prejudice from the decision not to cross-examine witnesses about their family relationships to the victim.
5. Henry failed to show deficient performance or prejudice from the failure to object to the trial court's instruction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction for malice murder.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately consult with the defendant.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the case properly.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to question prosecution witnesses about potential bias.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction.

Disposition

affirmed