COLLINS v. THE STATE (Three Cases)

Jalin Collins, Percy Burdine, and Brandon Love were tried together in Cobb County and convicted of murder and related crimes after Kelley, a marijuana dealer, was shot and killed during what began as a planned robbery. Burdine argued the evidence against him was too weak, that his trial should have been separate from his co-defendants', that a jury instruction was wrong, and that his lawyer was ineffective. Collins argued a different jury instruction was improper and that his lawyer failed him in several ways. Love argued the judge should have let the jury consider a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter because he claimed he acted in the heat of passion. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected every argument. It found enough evidence tied Burdine to the robbery plan even without proof he knew about a gun, found no reason a joint trial was unfair, found the challenged jury instructions were legally correct, found Love's testimony showed fear rather than passion, and found the defense lawyers' choices were reasonable trial strategy rather than deficient performance.

The court held that sufficient evidence supported each conviction as a party to the crimes, that the trial court properly denied severance and gave correct jury instructions, that the evidence did not support a voluntary manslaughter charge, and that trial counsel for Burdine and Collins were not constitutionally deficient.

The ruling reaffirms that Georgia defendants can be held responsible for a co-participant's use of a deadly weapon during a planned robbery even without direct knowledge of the weapon, and that inconsistent jury verdicts do not automatically void a conviction, shaping how future joint criminal trials and appeals are litigated statewide.

Judgments affirmed

1. The court applied the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard from Jackson v. Virginia, asking only whether a rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and found the evidence of planning, phone records, and witness testimony met that bar for Burdine.
2. Applying Georgia's party-to-a-crime rule, which lets someone be convicted for a crime committed by an accomplice if they shared a common criminal intent, the court found Burdine could be responsible for the shooting even without knowing his co-defendants had a gun, because it was a foreseeable risk of the planned robbery.
3. The court explained that Georgia abolished the old rule requiring reversal for inconsistent verdicts (verdicts that seem to contradict each other), so Burdine's felony murder conviction could stand even though the jury acquitted him of malice murder and the underlying assault charge.
4. Reviewing the denial of severance for abuse of discretion, the court found little risk of jury confusion, no improper spillover of evidence between defendants, and that mere antagonism between co-defendants' defenses was not enough to require separate trials.
5. The court found no error, plain or otherwise, in the jury instructions on out-of-court statements and on witnesses who unknowingly participate in a crime, because both instructions were legally accurate and supported by evidence presented at trial.
6. On the ineffective assistance claims, the court applied the Strickland standard requiring both deficient performance and resulting harm, and concluded that defense counsel's strategic choices, including how to respond to a jury question, were reasonable and not constitutionally deficient.

• murder conviction
• party to a crime
• severance of trials
• jury instructions
• ineffective assistance of counsel