Williams v. State

Carl Williams was convicted of malice murder and other crimes for fatally shooting his fiancée, Doninjae Jackson-Neals, at their DeKalb County apartment in 2017. Williams told police the shooting was accidental while he demonstrated gun safety, but evidence showed the couple's relationship was volatile, that a neighbor heard sounds of a struggle before the shooting, and that the gun had been pressed directly against the victim's head when it fired. On appeal, Williams argued his trial lawyer was ineffective for not objecting to the victim's uncle testifying that Williams was 'the type of dude that will kill you,' to the prosecutor repeating that testimony in closing arguments, and to prosecutor comments during opening statements about that testimony and about Williams initially refusing to speak with police. The Supreme Court of Georgia found that two of these claims were never raised in the trial court and so could not be reviewed, and that the other two failed because Williams could not show the outcome of his trial would have been different even if his lawyer had objected. The court affirmed his convictions.

The court held that two of Williams's ineffective assistance claims were unpreserved because they were never raised in his motion for new trial or at that hearing, and that his remaining claims failed because he could not show a reasonable probability the trial's outcome would have been different, given the jury instruction that opening statements are not evidence and the strong evidence of guilt.

The decision reinforces that Georgia defendants must raise every ineffective-assistance argument at their first opportunity, typically in the motion for new trial, or lose the chance to raise it later. It also confirms prosecutors can preview expected testimony in opening statements without automatically creating grounds for reversal.

Affirmed

1. Under the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance must show both that his lawyer's performance was unreasonable and that this failure likely changed the outcome of the trial; if either part fails, the claim fails.
2. Claims of ineffective assistance must be raised at the first opportunity, usually in a motion for new trial with new counsel; because Williams never raised his claims about the uncle's testimony and the prosecutor's closing argument comments in his motion for new trial, those claims were not preserved for the Supreme Court of Georgia to review.
3. Prosecutors are generally allowed to tell the jury during opening statements what they expect the evidence to show, so any objection to the prosecutor previewing the uncle's testimony or the investigator's testimony about Williams staying silent would not necessarily have succeeded.
4. Even assuming the lawyer should have objected to the opening statement comments, Williams could not show prejudice because the trial judge told the jury that lawyers' statements are not evidence, and the testimony the prosecutor previewed was later introduced without objection.
5. The court also pointed to strong evidence of guilt, including sounds of a struggle before the shooting, Williams's false claim that the couple never argued, his disposal of the gun and delay in calling 911, and the fact that the gun was pressed directly against the victim's head despite his claim it was several inches away, all of which undermined any claim of prejudice.

• murder conviction
• ineffective assistance of counsel
• DeKalb County
• opening statement comments
• right to remain silent