Watts v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Fitts v. Franklin

    312 Ga. 134 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 25 times
    Noting that, if disbelieved by the jury, the defendant’s testimony denying involvement in the crimes could have served as direct evidence of guilt

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Watts v. State , 308 Ga. 455, 458 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020). "Trial tactics or strategy are almost never adequate grounds for finding trial counsel ineffective unless they are so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen them."

  2. Kirkland v. State

    898 S.E.2d 536 (Ga. 2024)   Cited 3 times
    Identifying no cumulative error from erroneously admitted other-acts evidence and improper jury instructions considering the strong evidence of guilt

    Decisions about the investigation of a case and what questions to ask on cross-examination are quintessential trial strategy and will not constitute ineffective assistance unless they are so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen that approach. Watts v. State, 308 Ga. 455, 460 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020) (decisions about what questions to ask on cross-examination are quintessential trial strategy and rarely constitute ineffective assistance); Romer v. State, 293 Ga. 339, 344 (3) (a), 745 S.E.2d 637 (2013) (counsel’s tactical decision will not form the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim unless it was "so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen it" (citation and punctuation omitted)). [16] Viewing counsel’s investigation and cross-examination decisions in this light, we conclude that Kirkland has failed to meet his burden of proving that trial counsel’s performance was deficient.

  3. Moore v. State

    315 Ga. 263 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 29 times
    Explaining that "[t]he scope of an attorney’s cross-examination is ‘grounded in trial tactics and strategy, and will rarely constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,’ " and holding that trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to cross-examine witnesses about the sentences they faced on charges that were pending at the time of trial, because the evidence showed that the witnesses had not received any benefit as to those charges in exchange for their testimony

    McCoy v. State , 303 Ga. 141, 143 (2), 810 S.E.2d 487 (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Watts v. State , 308 Ga. 455, 460-461 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020) (reasonable strategy not to impeach witness with variation in testimony when other avenue of cross-examination could have been more effective); Lakes v. State , 266 Ga. 389, 389 (2), 467 S.E.2d 566 (1996) (reasonable strategy not to impeach witnesses on prior convictions to avoid emphasis on drug activity as a motive for murder). Here, Marshall, Benard, and Young all testified about the "relevant issue": whether they "entertained any belief of personal benefit from testifying favorably for the prosecution."

  4. Pritchett v. State

    No. S22A0809 (Ga. Oct. 4, 2022)

    Moreover, "[t]rial tactics or strategy are almost never adequate grounds for finding trial counsel ineffective unless they are so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen them." Watts v. State, 308 Ga. 455, 460 (2) (841 S.E.2d 686) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). And "[t]he matter of when and how to raise objections is generally a matter of trial strategy."

  5. Pritchett v. State

    314 Ga. 767 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding erroneous admission of other-acts evidence was harmless in part because, in considering whether the admission of other-acts evidence was harmless, "we presume that the jury followed [the trial court's] instructions and did not use the other-acts evidence improperly to support that [Appellant] had a propensity towards violence"

    Moreover, "[t]rial tactics or strategy are almost never adequate grounds for finding trial counsel ineffective unless they are so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen them." Watts v. State , 308 Ga. 455, 460 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). And "[t]he matter of when and how to raise objections is generally a matter of trial strategy."

  6. Lee v. State

    314 Ga. 724 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Moreover, "[t]rial tactics or strategy are almost never adequate grounds for finding trial counsel ineffective unless they are so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen them." Watts v. State , 308 Ga. 455, 460 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). And "[t]he matter of when and how to raise objections is generally a matter of trial strategy."

  7. Patterson v. State

    314 Ga. 167 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 10 times

    More specifically, decisions about what particular questions to ask on cross-examination are quintessential trial strategy and will rarely constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Watts v. State , 308 Ga. 455, 460 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). And "the degree to which an attorney chooses to cross-examine witnesses and the manner in which to attack their credibility fall within the ambit of trial tactics."

  8. Waller v. State

    368 Ga. App. 378 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Grier v. State , 273 Ga. 363, 365 (4), 541 S.E.2d 369 (2001). (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Watts v. State , 308 Ga. 455, 460 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020). 6. Waller argues that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling a hearsay objection.

  9. Parrish v. State

    362 Ga. App. 392 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that even if trial counsel's submission of statement to police contained contradictions and amounted to deficient performance, evidence supporting defendant's manslaughter conviction (in the form of multiple witnesses) was overwhelming and, therefore, he failed to show that trial counsel's actions prejudiced him

    Cf.Pope , 311 Ga. at 560-61, 858 S.E.2d 492 (holding that defendant failed to show how his trial counsel's strategic decision not to seek a pre-trial immunity hearing and thereby reveal the defense theory to the prosecutor before trial, and instead to wait and present self-defense claim to the jury, was objectively unreasonable); Dent v. State , 303 Ga. 110, 119 (4) (d), 810 S.E.2d 527 (2018) (finding that trial counsel's strategic decision not to file pre-trial motion for immunity from prosecution because he did not want to expose defendant to pre-trial cross-examination was not unreasonable, and therefore, defendant failed to show that trial counsel performed deficiently).SeeWatts v. State , 308 Ga. 455, 461 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020) (holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel's decision not to impeach witness prejudiced his case given overwhelming evidence that shooting was not in self-defense, including testimony from multiple witnesses that victim was not armed, did not threaten defendant, was still a considerable distance away when defendant opened fire, and that defendant fled scene); Lambert v. State , 287 Ga. 774, 777 (2), 700 S.E.2d 354 (2010) (concluding that because the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of his murder trial would have been more favorable had counsel attempted to prevent the jury from hearing defendant's version of events via his statement to police). 2. Parrish also contends that the trial court erred by providing a conflicting and confusing jury instruction as to his justification defense.

  10. Clark v. State

    360 Ga. App. 11 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Under these circumstances, we cannot say that trial counsel was objectively unreasonable in not pursuing the issue on cross-examination. See Watts v. State , 308 Ga. 455, 460-461 (2), 841 S.E.2d 686 (2020) (holding that trial counsel's decision to elicit evidence to challenge a witness's credibility through a means other than cross-examination was not objectively unreasonable where cross-examination might highlight evidence negative to the defense). As to trial counsel's failure to cross-examine Richards about her use of Ambien, we must look at what trial counsel knew about that issue at the time of his performance, not in hindsight in light of later-obtained information.