Scott v. State (2010)

Reynolds v. State, 285 Ga. 70, 71 ( 673 SE2d 854 ) (2009); Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 716 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010); Johnson v. State, 293 Ga. App. 728, 730 ( 667 SE2d 637 ) (2008).

Reynolds v. State, 285 Ga. 70, 71 ( 673 SE2d 854 ) (2009); 2 Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 716 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010); Johnson v. State, 293 Ga. App. 728, 730 ( 667 SE2d 637 ) (2008).

See Reynolds v. State, 285 Ga. 70, 71 ( 673 SE2d 854 ) (2009); Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625, 630 (5) ( 409 SE2d 839 ) (1991), overruled on other grounds recognized in Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 6, 10 (5) ( 515 SE2d 155 ) (1999); Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 716 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010); Johnson v. State, 293 Ga. App. 728, 730 ( 667 SE2d 637 ) (2008).

See Reynolds v. State, 285 Ga. 70, 71 ( 673 SE2d 854 ) (2009); Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625, 630 (5) ( 409 SE2d 839 ) (1991), overruled on other grounds recognized in Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 6, 10 (5) ( 515 SE2d 155 ) (1999); Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 716 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010); Johnson v. State, 293 Ga. App. 728, 730 ( 667 SE2d 637 ) (2008).

See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 647, 649 (3) (a) ( 670 SE2d 421 ) (2008); Lampley v. State, 284 Ga. 37, 38-39 (2) (b) ( 663 SE2d 184 ) (2008); Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 716 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010); Reynolds v. State, 300 Ga. App. 353 -354 (2) ( 685 SE2d 346 ) (2009). “[T]rial counsel’s testimony established that his failure to object to these improper arguments [and testimony] arose not from strategy, but from his mistaken belief that they were not object…

See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 647, 649 (3) (a) ( 670 SE2d 421 ) (2008); Lampley v. State, 284 Ga. 37, 38-39 (2) (b) ( 663 SE2d 184 ) (2008); Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 716 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010); Reynolds v. State, 300 Ga. App. 353 -354 (2) ( 685 SE2d 346 ) (2009). [T]rial counsel’s testimony established that his failure to object to these improper arguments [and testimony] arose not from strategy, but from his mistaken belief that they were not objecti…

See Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 716-717 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010) (“In the context of an ineffective assistance claim, prejudice is shown by demonstrating that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the case would have been different but for the deficient performance of counsel.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); Barker, 277 Ga. App. 84, 87 (3).

In light of the strength of the evidence, we conclude that no prejudice resulted from trial counsel’s failure to raise a Mallory objection to the prosecutor’s argument.9 Consequently, Williams has not shown ineffective assistance of counsel in this 9 See Wallace v. State, 272 Ga. 501, 504 (3) (a) ( 530 SE2d 721 ) (2000) (in light of the strength of the physical and circumstantial evidence identifying the appellant as the perpetrator of his wife’s murder, the appellant failed…

Although the complained of statement in this case is similar to one found to be an improper comment on a defendant’s right to remain silent in Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 713 ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010), there the prosecutor’s statement, which included additional language asking why he (Scott) failed to give the *391 police a statement if he “hadn’t done anything,” was clearly directed at the defendant’s failure to turn himself in after having been informed the police were…

Courts must consider a number of factors “[w]hen determining whether the State’s unchallenged comments or questions about a defendant’s right to remain silent have prejudiced that defendant.” Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 717 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010).

Courts must consider a number of factors “[w]hen determining whether the State’s unchallenged comments or questions about a defendant’s right to remain silent have prejudiced that defendant.” Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710, 717 (2) (a) ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010).

See Scott v. State, 305 Ga. App. 710 ( 700 SE2d 694 ) (2010); Miller v. State, 228 Ga. App. 754 ( 492 SE2d 734 ) (1997); Geoffrion, supra. (iii) Closing argument.