 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woods v. State9/13/1999
nary hearing and the defendants' statements to police. This work shows that trial counsel adequately prepared for trial.
C. Woods claims that his trial counsel was ineffective under the totality of the circumstances, listing 18 specific errors. These errors include trial counsel's failure to participate at the preliminary hearing, hire an investigator and expert witness, file pretrial motions, move for a severance or continuance, challenge the jury selection, object to the admission of certain evidence, introduce evidence of the victim's blood alcohol level, and move for a directed verdict.
At trial, the primary issues were the cause of Moss's head injury and whether either defendant was justified in hitting him. The testimony consisted of conflicting accounts by 20 witnesses about the fights at the party, the injuries each fight caused, and the victim's statements concerning who hurt him. Both trial counsel cross-examined each witness and elicited testimony favorable to their client's justification defense. In addition, both defendants testified and presented witnesses who supported their account of what happened, including the fact that Moss had been drinking.
Since there is no deficient performance when an attorney fails to object to admissible evidence, Woods has failed to show that his attorney was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of the victim's or defendants' statements to police. Assuming the other actions of trial counsel were deficient, Woods has failed to show how these deficiencies harmed him. There was repeated testimony linking Woods directly to the blunt head trauma that resulted in Moss's death. Two police officers testified that Moss identified Woods as his attacker. Other witnesses testified that Woods called Moss out to the street and hit him and that Moss had a deep, bleeding hole in his head after that fight. Given this evidence, Woods has failed to show how the outcome of the trial would have been different absent his attorney's alleged errors.
3. Finally, the trial court properly ruled that the state's closing argument was based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|