McDonald v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Steve McDonald's convictions arising from the murder, robbery, and related offenses involving Kim Condry. The court rejected challenges concerning sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, self-representation, and jury composition, but held that the trial court erred in merging the offenses for sentencing. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support McDonald's convictions because Gibson's accomplice testimony was corroborated by independent evidence connecting McDonald to the crimes, including phone records, physical evidence, witness testimony, his statements to police, possession of the victim's necklace, and flight.
2. McDonald failed to establish ineffective assistance because he did not show deficient performance and resulting prejudice as to the asserted failures of counsel.
3. McDonald could not obtain appellate relief based on the self-representation request because he abandoned that request before voir dire and confirmed that he wanted counsel to represent him.
4. McDonald's challenge to the composition of the jury array was waived because he did not raise it at trial.
5. The felony-murder verdicts were vacated by operation of law rather than merged into the malice-murder conviction; the armed-robbery, false-imprisonment, and theft-by-taking verdicts did not merge into malice murder; and the theft-by-taking verdict merged into the armed-robbery verdict because both counts were based on the taking of the victim's necklace and pendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support McDonald's convictions when the State's principal narrative witness was an accomplice.
2. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to prepare adequately, challenge venue, seek severance or bifurcation of the felon-in-possession count, request a Jackson-Denno hearing, challenge the jury panel, or suppress physical evidence.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing or failing to permit McDonald to represent himself.
4. Whether McDonald waived his challenge to the composition of the jury pool by failing to raise it at trial.
5. Whether the trial court correctly merged or vacated the various felony-murder, armed-robbery, false-imprisonment, and theft-by-taking verdicts for sentencing.

Disposition

vacated