Compton v. State

Javaris Compton and Rashad Bolton shared a cell at Hancock State Prison. On January 4, 2021, Bolton was found bleeding and later died from stab wounds, and Compton was found with a homemade knife. A Hancock County jury convicted Compton of malice murder, and he was sentenced to life without parole. At trial, a state investigator testified that Compton refused to talk to him after being read his Miranda rights, testimony that is generally improper because it comments on a defendant's right to stay silent. Compton's lawyer did not object right away, letting the investigator answer several more questions before objecting and asking for a mistrial. The Supreme Court of Georgia had to decide whether that delayed objection preserved the issue for appeal. The court held that it did not, because Georgia law requires a mistrial motion to be made the moment the problem testimony comes out, not after further questioning continues.

The court held that a defendant must move for a mistrial at the earliest opportunity, meaning the moment the objectionable testimony is given, and that allowing further questioning to continue before objecting forfeits the issue for appellate review, regardless of the merits of the underlying objection.

The ruling reinforces a strict rule for Georgia trial lawyers: objections and mistrial requests must come immediately when improper testimony is given, or the issue is lost on appeal no matter how serious the problem. This affects how defense attorneys must react in real time during trials statewide.

Affirmed

1. The court applied the rule that to preserve a mistrial motion for appeal, a defendant must object and move for mistrial at the earliest opportunity, that is, at the moment the objectionable testimony is given, not later.
2. Applying that rule, the court noted Compton's lawyer did not object when the investigator first said Compton refused to talk to him, and instead let the prosecutor ask several more unrelated questions before objecting and moving for a mistrial.
3. The court compared this case to prior decisions like Moss v. State and Pittman v. State, where similar delays in objecting after improper testimony meant the issue was not preserved for appeal, showing a consistent pattern the court follows.
4. Because Compton's objection and mistrial motion came only after further testimony had already been given, the court concluded his delay was not a contemporaneous objection, so the trial court's denial of the mistrial could not be reviewed on appeal.

• murder conviction
• mistrial motion
• Miranda rights
• prison stabbing
• preserving objections for appeal