Taylor v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Mark Antonio Taylor’s convictions arising from the shooting death of Charles Ernest Weaver during a vehicle theft. The court rejected Taylor’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of evidence concerning an altercation with his girlfriend, and improper testimony regarding self-defense. All justices concurred.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Taylor guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which the jury returned guilty verdicts.
2. Taylor failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel's voir-dire questioning and juror-strike decisions were reasonable strategic choices, and none of the seated jurors expressed an opinion so fixed that the juror could not be fair and impartial.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to cross-examine Taylor about the nature of the altercation because the questioning impeached his inaccurate testimony about why he had been expelled from the car and was permissible during thorough and sifting cross-examination.
4. Because the evidence concerning the altercation was admissible, counsel was not deficient for failing to object when the prosecutor referred to it during closing argument.
5. Taylor could not obtain relief based on the investigator's self-defense testimony because defense counsel deliberately elicited the testimony to introduce the self-defense issue, making any resulting error invited error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Taylor's convictions.
2. Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in conducting voir dire and deciding which prospective jurors to strike.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to cross-examine Taylor about a physical altercation with his girlfriend for impeachment purposes.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor referred to the altercation during closing argument.
5. Whether the trial court committed reversible or plain error by allowing the lead investigator to testify about self-defense after defense counsel elicited testimony on that subject.

Disposition

affirmed