Tabb v. State

Ryan Robinson, who drove people around for money, was found shot to death in his car near Atlanta in January 2019. Evidence showed Robinson had picked up Joseph Tabb before and was on his way to pick him up again the night he was killed. Tabb later told his girlfriend he had robbed and killed Robinson. A Fulton County jury convicted Tabb of malice murder, armed robbery, and other charges, and he was sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, Tabb argued the evidence against him was too weak, that the trial court should not have made him wear shackles in front of the jury, and that his trial lawyer failed him in several ways, including by not objecting to emotional testimony from the victim's mother and to a detective's testimony about cell phone tower data. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected every argument. It found the evidence, including Tabb's own admission and supporting cell phone and physical evidence, was enough to convict him, that he never objected to the shackling at trial so he could not raise it now, and that his lawyer's strategic choices were reasonable given the circumstances.

The court held that Tabb's admission to his girlfriend was direct evidence of guilt, sufficiently corroborated by other evidence, making the trial evidence constitutionally sufficient; that Tabb forfeited his shackling claim by not objecting at trial; and that his trial counsel's strategic decisions not to object to various testimony were objectively reasonable, so he was not constitutionally ineffective.

The ruling reinforces that a defendant's own admission to a witness counts as direct evidence of guilt, that failing to object to shackling at trial forfeits the issue on appeal, and that defense lawyers have wide latitude to make strategic calls about objections without being found constitutionally ineffective.

Affirmed

1. The court applied the constitutional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard from Jackson v. Virginia, asking whether a rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
2. Because Tabb told his girlfriend he shot and killed the victim, this was direct evidence of guilt, defeating his claim that the case rested only on circumstantial evidence, which under Georgia law must exclude every other reasonable explanation besides guilt.
3. Since Tabb's statement amounted to a confession (admitting the full criminal act without excuse), Georgia law required it to be corroborated by other evidence, but only some corroboration in any particular is needed, not a specific type or amount.
4. The court found the confession sufficiently corroborated by cell tower records placing Tabb near the crime scene, testimony about arranging the ride, and evidence the murder weapon matched a gun Tabb had been photographed carrying.
5. On the shackling claim, the court held Tabb never objected at trial, so the issue was not preserved for appellate review and no exception allowed the court to consider it now.
6. Applying the Strickland test for ineffective assistance, which requires showing both deficient performance and resulting prejudice, the court found each of trial counsel's challenged decisions, including not objecting to the mother's brief emotional testimony, an in-life photo, a detective's lay testimony about cell data, and the shackling, was an objectively reasonable strategic choice, so none of the claims succeeded.

• murder conviction
• shackling at trial
• ineffective assistance of counsel
• circumstantial evidence
• cell phone location evidence