Powell v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed William and Sharmilla Powell’s convictions arising from a home-invasion robbery and shooting that resulted in Jesse Evans’s death. The court rejected challenges concerning sufficiency of the evidence, change of venue, jury impartiality and racial composition, prosecutorial misconduct, and Sharmilla Powell’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find William Powell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because eyewitness testimony and physical evidence showed that he either directly committed or was a party to the crimes.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the armed-robbery conviction; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or resolve witness-credibility conflicts, which are matters for the jury.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for a change of venue because the appellants failed to show either an inherently prejudicial trial setting or actual juror prejudice making a fair trial impossible.
4. The appellants waived their claim concerning the all-Caucasian jury by failing to make a Batson challenge or other objection in the trial court.
5. William Powell's prosecutorial-misconduct claim based on the prosecutor's questioning of Sharmilla about religion and oath-taking was waived because no objection was made at trial.
6. Sharmilla Powell failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because the record showed reasonable trial strategy or failed to establish prejudice for each challenged omission.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support William Powell's convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault of Jesse Evans.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support William Powell's armed-robbery conviction despite conflicting and impeached testimony.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Powells' motions for a change of venue based on pretrial publicity and jurors' familiarity with the victim.
4. Whether the Powells' claim that the all-Caucasian jury denied them a fair and impartial jury was preserved for appellate review and had merit.
5. Whether the prosecutor's questioning of Sharmilla Powell about religion and oath-taking constituted prosecutorial misconduct.
6. Whether Sharmilla Powell received ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's handling of venue, severance, the redacted indictment, and allegedly omitted evidence.

Disposition

affirmed