Rease v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirms Shanard Deshun Rease’s convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault arising from the strangulation death of his neighbor, Mimi Perry. The court rejects claims concerning the exclusion of alibi and rebuttal evidence, DNA evidence and prosecutorial argument, alleged judicial comments on guilt, and ineffective assistance of counsel. It concludes that any assumed evidentiary error was harmless and that the remaining claims were waived, lacked error, or did not satisfy the applicable plain-error standard.

Holdings

1. Even assuming that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the GPS map and receipts, any error was harmless because the evidence did not establish an alibi or materially rebut the State's evidence, and the evidence of guilt was strong.
2. The challenges to the prosecutor's opening and closing comments were waived because Rease did not object, and the DNA expert's testimony did not constitute plain error because it accurately distinguished the frequency of the foreign DNA profile from the frequency of Rease's personal DNA profile.
3. The trial court did not violate OCGA § 17-8-57 because its scheduling comments and instructions concerning the jury's partial verdict neither expressed an opinion about Rease's guilt nor intimated what the evidence showed.
4. Rease failed to establish ineffective assistance because he did not show deficient performance and, for the evidence-disclosure claim, did not show resulting prejudice.
5. The assumed evidentiary error and presumed counsel deficiency did not cumulatively prejudice Rease or deny him a fundamentally fair trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court reversibly erred by excluding two receipts and a GPS map offered in support of Rease's alibi or rebuttal evidence.
2. Whether the State's DNA expert's testimony and the prosecutor's comments concerning the statistical significance of the DNA evidence constituted reversible error.
3. Whether the trial court violated OCGA § 17-8-57 by commenting on the jury's deliberations, scheduling, and partial verdict.
4. Whether trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance through deficient preparation, failure to timely disclose evidence, failure to object to prosecutorial comments, and other alleged deficiencies.
5. Whether the cumulative effect of assumed trial errors and presumed counsel deficiency required a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed