Reese v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia reviews Larry Reese’s convictions for malice murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Reese argued that the trial court plainly erred by omitting jury instructions on justification, no duty to retreat, the State’s burden regarding affirmative defenses, and accomplice corroboration, and that trial counsel was ineffective. The court rejected the challenged jury-instruction claims described in the excerpt and analyzed Reese’s ineffective-assistance claims.

Holdings

1. Even assuming that omitting the requested justification and no-duty-to-retreat instructions was clear and obvious error and was not affirmatively waived, Reese failed to show a reasonable probability that the omission affected the outcome of the trial; therefore, plain error was not established.
2. The trial court did not plainly err by failing to give an accomplice-corroboration instruction because Reese failed to show even slight evidence that Reese and Bell shared a common criminal intent or acted together to commit the charged offenses.
3. Reese failed to establish deficient performance because he did not make the required strong showing that a suppression motion challenging the discovery of the key ring, shell casings, or surveillance cameras would have succeeded.
4. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to request an accomplice-corroboration instruction because Reese failed to show that slight evidence supported giving the instruction; requesting it would have been meritless.
5. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the jury instructions because the instructions did not clearly constitute an impermissible sequential instruction under existing precedent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury on justification and no duty to retreat.
2. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony must be corroborated.
3. Whether Reese received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to move to suppress evidence allegedly obtained through an unconstitutional search of the curtilage.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request an accomplice-corroboration instruction.
5. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an allegedly impermissible sequential jury instruction.
6. Whether the cumulative effect of any errors required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed