Lawrence v. State

The defense counsel was not deficient for strategically deciding not to cross-examine certain of the state's witnesses, as cross-examining those witnesses would have given them a chance to further implicate the defendant with their emphasized testimony.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Roosevelt Lawrence was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime relating to the shooting death of Mason Harper.1 Lawrence contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that his trial counsel was ineffective, and that the trial court erred by failing to give his requested jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. We affirm. 1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that, on June 29, 2006, Lawrence and his two compatriots, Justin Hendrix and Demario Garrison, set up a drug deal with Mason Harper that was scheduled to take place later that day. At the time of the purported drug deal, Lawrence and Garrison retrieved shotguns from their car, approached Harper’s car, and shot him in the face and neck, killing him. At trial, both of Lawrence’s accomplices placed Lawrence at the scene of the crime and provided a detailed account of the murder.

The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Lawrence guilty of all the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. See also Frazier v. State , 257 Ga. 690, 699 16 362 SE2d 351 1987 While a defendant may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a single accomplice, “it is well established that the testimony of a second accomplice is sufficient to corroborate that of the first” citation omitted.

Lawrence v. State

The defense counsel was not deficient for strategically deciding not to cross-examine certain of the state's witnesses, as cross-examining those witnesses would have given them a chance to further implicate the defendant with their emphasized testimony.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report