Huitron v. State  ·  2017-06-19  ·  Supreme Court of Georgia  ·  pin 717 S.E.2d at 464

“An attorney’s decision not to seek a limiting instruction to avoid drawing attention to the subject of the instruction is a matter of trial strategy that falls within the range of reasonable professional conduct when, as here, it is a reasonable 41 decision.”

Gomez v. State  ·  2017-06-19  ·  Supreme Court of Georgia  ·  pin 717 S.E.2d at 464

“An attorney’s decision not to seek a limiting instruction to avoid drawing attention to the subject of the instruction is a matter of trial strategy that falls within the range of reasonable professional conduct when, as here, it is a reasonable decision.”

Rivera, A/K/A Jurkewicz v. State  ·  2014-06-30  ·  Supreme Court of Georgia  ·  pin 717 S.E.2d at 464

“as a general rule, matters of reasonable trial tactics do not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel”

Rivera v. the State  ·  2014-06-30  ·  Supreme Court of Georgia  ·  pin 717 S.E.2d at 464

“as a general rule, matters of reasonable trial tactics do not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel”

Stephen R. Hoke v. State  ·  2014-03-10  ·  Court of Appeals of Georgia  ·  pin 717 S.E.2d at 464

“An attorney’s decision not to seek a limiting instruction to avoid drawing [further] attention to the subject of the instruction is a matter of trial strategy that falls within the range of reasonable professional conduct when, as here, it is a reasonable decision.”

Hoke v. State  ·  2014-03-10  ·  Court of Appeals of Georgia  ·  pin 717 S.E.2d at 464

“An attorney’s decision not to seek a limiting instruction to avoid drawing [further] attention to the subject of the instruction is a matter of trial strategy that falls within the range of reasonable professional conduct when, as here, it is a reasonable decision.”

Melissa Smith v. State  ·  2012-10-04  ·  Court of Appeals of Georgia  ·  pin 717 S.E.2d at 464

“At the hearing on the motion for new trial, 10 defense counsel testified she did not object because she did not find the witness to be credible and hoped that the witness’s testimony would show the jurors he was not credible.”

Smith v. State  ·  2012-10-04  ·  Court of Appeals of Georgia  ·  pin 717 S.E.2d at 464

“At the hearing on the motion for new trial, defense counsel testified she did not object because she did not find the witness to be credible and hoped that the witness’s testimony would show the jurors he was not credible.”