[9] In the context of a juror alleged to have been sleeping during court proceedings, "this [C]ourt will not interfere with a trial court’s decision regarding removal of a juror from a panel absent an abuse of that court’s discretion."Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 839 (2), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013).
Clark v. State, 315 Ga. 1, 5 (2) (b), 880 S.E.2d 201 (2022) (addressing a claim that the trial court should have sua sponte investigated a jurormisconduct issue). See also Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 838 (2), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013) (holding that a challenge to the trial court’s failure to question a sleeping juror was "waived" where "counsel made no contemporaneous request for the trial court to conduct an inquiry and later declined to move to excuse the juror"). 7. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a motion for mistrial based on improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments.
(1) a witness’ opportunity to view the accused at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of accused; (4) the witness’ level of certainty at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 842 (5), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013). "The ultimate question is, whether under the totality of the circumstances, the identification is reliable."
” Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 841(5), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013) (citation omitted; emphasis supplied). See generally Johnson v. State, 294 Ga. 86, 90(4), 750 S.E.2d 347 (2013) (“An unduly suggestive procedure is one which leads the witness to the virtually inevitable identification of the defendant as the perpetrator, and is equivalent to the authorities telling the witness, ‘This is our suspect.’
(Citations omitted.) Mathis v. State, 293 Ga.App. 837, 838(2), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013). However, even assuming this issue is properly before this Court, we find no error.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 841(4), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013). Here, the evidence shows the shootout was planned and coordinated for the common purpose of extracting revenge upon D–Bone and his associates.
(1) a witness' opportunity to view the accused at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the accused; (4) the witness' level of certainty at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 842(5), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013). “ ‘In determining whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress identification testimony, this court may consider the evidence adduced both at the suppression hearing and at trial.’ ”
Under OCGA § 15–12–172, the trial court has discretion to replace a juror with an alternate at any time, whether before or after final submission of the case to the jury, provided the trial court has a sound legal basis to do so. Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 839(1), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013). This Court will not reverse a trial court's decision to remove a juror from a panel absent an abuse of discretion. Armstrong v. State, 325 Ga.App. 33, 39(5), 752 S.E.2d 120 (2013).
In employing this “all or nothing” strategy, Styles testified that he was at the residence merely as a guest and that Jones alone had perpetrated the crimes; Styles sought to corroborate his version of events by eliciting testimony from several state witnesses that he had not participated in any of Jones's acts. State v. Worsley, 293 Ga. 315, 325(4), n. 10, 745 S.E.2d 617 (2013) (citing Williams v. Head, 185 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir.1999), for the proposition that “where the record is incomplete or unclear about [trial counsel's] actions, we will presume that he did what he should have done, and that he exercised reasonable professional judgment”); Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 840(3), 750 S.E.2d 308 (2013) (“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, counsel's decisions are presumed to be strategic and thus insufficient to support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).
" On review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to exclude an identification, "evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment and the trial court's findings on disputed facts and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous."Mathis v. State, 293 Ga. 837, 841 (5) (750 SE2d 308) (2013) (citation omitted; emphasis supplied). See generally Johnson v. State, 294 Ga. 86, 90 (4) (750 SE2d 347) (2013) ("An unduly suggestive procedure is one which leads the witness to the virtually inevitable identification of the defendant as the perpetrator, and is equivalent to the authorities telling the witness, 'This is our suspect.'"