Grier v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Gold v. The State

    902 S.E.2d 593 (Ga. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Relying on these code provisions, we have held that as a general matter a lay witness may offer opinion testimony based on experience even if the testimony touches upon an ultimate issue to be decided by the jury. See Grier v. State, 305 Ga. 882, 884-86 (2) (a), 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019) (witnesses’ opinion that defendant "must have been the one to kill the victims" was not inadmissible for "invad[ing] the jury’s province and comment[ing] upon the ultimate issue" but was admissible under OCGA §§ 24-7-701 (a) and 704 (a)); see also Mack v. State, 306 Ga. 607, 609-10 (2), 832 S.E.2d 415 (2019) (no error in admitting comments by detective that touched on the ultimate issue of accident in a fatal shooting where the comments were offered as lay opinion and to counter the defense’s theory); Taylor v. State, 365 Ga. App. 30, 32-33, 877 S.E.2d 286 (2022)

  2. Snipes v. State

    309 Ga. 785 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the appellant had not shown how testimony that she " ‘wasn't working or nothing’ " was "evidence of her bad character or otherwise prejudicial"

    Moreover, Neal's opinion that Snipes must have been the one to cause Ty'Qwan’s injuries was based on her perceptions and personal knowledge, including that she had seen Snipes inflict multiple forms of physical punishment previously and that Neal had been out of the house while Snipes had been with Ty'Qwan most of the day before his death. See Grier v. State , 305 Ga. 882, 885-86 (2) (a), 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019) (witness's opinion testimony admissible where it is rationally based on his perception and helpful to understanding his testimony); OCGA § 24-7-704 (a) ("Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible shall not be objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact."). Thus, any objection would have been meritless, and "[t]rial counsel cannot be deficient for failing to object to admissible testimony."

  3. Thornton v. State

    307 Ga. 121 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 27 times
    Concluding that a lead detective's testimony that only one suspect could have committed part of the crime was lay testimony and thus not barred by Rule 704

    Under our new Code, which applied to Appellant's 2015 trial, lay opinion testimony is not objectionable simply because it addresses an ultimate issue. See OCGA § 24-7-704 (a) (explaining that, subject to an exception not relevant here, "testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible shall not be objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact"); Grier v. State , 305 Ga. 882, 886, 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019). See also United States v. Beverley , 775 Fed. Appx. 468, 474 (11th Cir. 2019) ; United States v. Campo , 840 F.3d 1249, 1266-1267 (11th Cir. 2016).

  4. Clark v. State

    315 Ga. 1 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Addressing a claim that the trial court should have sua sponte investigated a jurormisconduct issue

    This alleged error is not preserved for our review because Clark did not raise any objection below to the trial court's handling of the juror issue. See Grier v. State , 305 Ga. 882, 887 (3), 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019) (failure to object at trial to alleged error results in waiver of appellate review). And this is not the kind of alleged error for which plain-error review is available.

  5. Robinson v. State

    308 Ga. 543 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that the admission of two firearms for demonstrative purposes was not improper, where the State's evidence was sufficient to lay a foundation of similarity between those firearms and the gun that shot the victim and it was made clear to the jury that the firearms used at trial were not the actual firearms used in the alleged crimes

    Because the trial court properly would have overruled a continuing witness objection, trial counsel was not deficient for failing to raise such an objection, and thus was not ineffective. See Grier v. State , 305 Ga. 882, 886 (2) (a), 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019) (trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to object when such objection would be without merit). In the handwritten letter, Cobb asked to talk with the State about a murder case in exchange for help getting out of jail.

  6. Corley v. State

    308 Ga. 321 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding extrinsic evidence regarding a witness's rent dispute in a murder trial where the primary issue was justification

    But Corley did not object to these comments at trial, so this enumeration of error is not properly before our Court for review. See Grier v. State, 305 Ga. 882, 887 (3), 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019) ("The contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct.") (Citation and punctuation omitted.). Both in her brief and in her motion for new trial (as amended), the only "comment[ ]" that Corley mentions is a question posed to a police officer about having the "unfortunate task[ ] of ... having to tell these nice folks that their daughter died."

  7. Mack v. State

    306 Ga. 607 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that defendant's ineffectiveness claim based on trial counsel's failure to object failed where the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming

    In the case of lay witness testimony, "an opinion or inference otherwise admissible shall not be objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue[.]" OCGA § 24-7-704 (a) ; see also Grier v. State , 305 Ga. 882, 886 (2) (a), 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019) ("And even though [the witnesses’] opinion about who killed the victims addressed an ultimate issue in the case, that alone does not make the testimony objectionable." (citation and punctuation omitted)); Thompson v. State , 304 Ga. 146, 153 (9), 816 S.E.2d 646 (2018) (a detective’s opinion testimony indicating she believed appellant to be the shooter "did not violate the ultimate issue rule in the new Evidence Code"); cf. OCGA § 24-7-704 (b) (prohibiting expert testimony on certain "ultimate issues" reserved "for the trier of fact alone").

  8. Oates v. State

    355 Ga. App. 301 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    Defense counsel continued with his examination, without requesting a curative instruction or moving for a mistrial.In context, the detective's testimony is most fairly seen as an attempt to explain her own conduct in interviewing T. H. at the hospital (in response to challenges by defense counsel) rather than an opinion on the ultimate issue of whether Oates had raped T. H. See generally Grier v. State , 305 Ga. 882, 885-886 (2) (a), 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019) (lay witnesses’ testimony that the defendant must have been the killer was rationally based on their perceptions and helpful to understanding their testimony). Further, because the detective was a lay witness, her remark was not barred even if it touched on the ultimate issue in the case.

  9. Bates v. State

    896 S.E.2d 581 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, and other related offenses where eyewitnesses identified defendant as the shooter and physical evidence supported their testimony

    Later-the phones of Jordan-Southern-and Willis all made or received calls near the armed robbery and near the murder. See Grier v. State-305 Ga-882-884 (1)-828 S.E.2d 304 (2019) (cell-phone records placing defendant near crime scene contributed to evidence authorizing guilty verdict). Still later-all the codefendants’ phones were active back in Decatur-near where several of them lived-in the same area where Hagood’s stolen phone was used and where his stolen car was recovered.

  10. Brown v. State

    307 Ga. 24 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that even if trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to object when investigator's testimony amounted to improper character evidence, defendant failed to prove requisite prejudice for claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, given overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Grier v. State , 305 Ga. 882, 885, 828 S.E.2d 304 (2019). See also OCGA § 24-7-701 (a).