Larkins v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Matthew Larkins’s convictions for malice murder and related offenses arising from the shooting death of Shanna Smith. The court held that accomplice Dejon Fuller’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by cell-phone, ballistics, and eyewitness evidence, and that any error in the jury instruction concerning a co-defendant’s out-of-court statement did not constitute reversible plain error. The opinion also addresses ineffective assistance, hearsay, and prosecutorial closing argument issues, although the supplied text ends before the opinion is complete.

Holdings

1. The evidence sufficiently corroborated Fuller's testimony identifying Larkins as a participant in the crimes and was constitutionally sufficient to support the convictions. Corroborating evidence may be slight and circumstantial and need not independently establish guilt or match the accomplice's testimony in every detail.
2. Even assuming the trial court clearly and obviously erred by instructing the jury that Ash's out-of-court statement could be used only against Ash, Larkins failed to establish plain error because he did not show that the instruction affected his substantial rights or likely affected the outcome.
3. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's response to the jury's request for phone records because counsel's interpretation of the response and decision not to object were not patently unreasonable.
4. Any error in admitting Sherry's statements to Fuller under the co-conspirator exception was harmless because it was highly probable that the statements did not contribute to the verdict.
5. Georgia law permits the State to waive its initial closing argument or to split its argument and proceed both first and last. The State's initial argument here was substantive, and the court declined to revisit the established rule.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence sufficiently corroborated accomplice Dejon Fuller's testimony under OCGA § 24-14-8 and supported Larkins's convictions.
2. Whether the trial court plainly erred by instructing the jury that a testifying co-defendant's out-of-court statement could be considered only against the co-defendant who made it.
3. Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object when the trial court allegedly commented on the evidence while responding to the jury's request for phone records.
4. Whether the trial court erred by admitting statements made by co-defendant Sherry to Fuller under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
5. Whether Georgia law improperly permits the State to waive or make a non-substantive initial closing argument under OCGA § 17-8-71, and whether the State's initial closing argument prejudiced Larkins.

Disposition

affirmed