I|0

Em
u; EFILED IN OFFICE
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
DOUGHERTY COUNTY, GEORG|A
SUR2019000726
1197
J UN 13, 2022 01 :55 PM
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOUGHERTYCOUNTY
T; ; ' Um
STATE OF GEORGIA (_ -HL c AL I - i
Evonne S. Mull Clerk
Dougherty County Georgia

STATE OF GEORGIA

v. :Criminal Action File No.: 2019-SU-R-726

JAZZY HUFF

Defendant(s)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Having read and considered Defendant's motion for new trial, as amended,
the State's response thereto, and all submitted arguments of the parties, and
having considered the testimonv and evidence Dresented at trial as well as all other
evidence in the record, this Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for New Trial on all
grounds.
The Defendant's Motion for New Trial alleges both General Grounds
and Enumerations of Error and Specific Grounds and Enumerations of Error. The
Court herebv Orders and Rules on each issue raised as follows:

GENERAL ENUMERATIONS OF ERROR: The Defendant asserts general

grounds for a new trial essentially asking the Court to sit as the thirteenth iuror,
under OCGA 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, exercising its discretion and weighing the evidence
under the standard spelled out in the statute. OCGA Sections 5-5-20 and 5-5-21
empowers the trial courts with the authority to weigh the evidence and exercise
sound discretion in cases where the verdict mav be decidedlv and stronglv against
the weight of the evidence. Both the State and the Defense cite White v State, 293
Ga. 523(2), 524(2013), as the legal authoritv for defining the proper standard to be
utilized relative to general grounds for granting a new trial.

Page 1 of 7
 The Court, upholding its affirmative dutv to exercise its discretion and weigh
the evidence, has carefully considered the facts of this case. The weight of the
evidence presented bv the State clearlv supports the verdict. The evidence
included a video (hereinafter referred to as "the video"). with audio, that captured
the fatal shooting inside of the business, testimony of witnesses, photographs, and
the defendant's recorded statement.

The video of the fatal shooting was captured bv Joseph Barron, an emplovee
oflazzv Movers. Barron used his telephone to record interactions between Zenas
Davis and the defendant inside of the business. Barron's testimonv provided
"incredible context" to what had transpired between Davis and the defendant
hours before the shooting. When questioned bv the State whether the defendant
pointed his gun at Zenas Davis' chest and said, "Let's go there!", Barron answered,
"Yes, sir". (Trial, Vol. 1, 175). Barron was also asked, "when he (Davis) got out of
the car, did vou observe any kind of weapon, or box cutter, or anything in his
hand?" He (Barron) replied, "no, sir." (Trial, Vol. 1, 143). Barron's testimonv was
effective in establishing the mood. tenor. and substance of what happened on the
dav of the shooting.

Other testimonv disclosed that Sgt. Chris Hutcherson of the Albanv Police
Department interviewed the defendant. The defendant was Mirandized. executed
a W aiver of Rights Form, and agreed to be interviewed without an attornev
present. The Court admitted State's Exhibit #5, the recorded custodial interview of
the defendant (Trial. Vol. 2. 279). W hen Hutcherson was asked on direct
examination if the defendant indicated at anv point "That he feared that Davis had
a weapon?" Sgt. Hutcherson said, "No, he didn't." (Trial, Vol. 2, 280). Hutcherson
was asked if the defendant had represented "that he thought that Zenas Davis had
a box cutter in his hand?". Sgt Hutcherson said, "No, he didn't". (Trial' Vol. 2, 286).
A total of eight gunshot wounds were found in Davis' bodv (Trial, Vol. 1, 119, L . 22-
24).

Page 2 of 7
 The apoellate courts have cautioned that the granting of a new trial on this
basis should onlv be invok ed in exceptional cases when the evidence
preponderates heavilv against the verdict. State v. Reid, 331 Ga. App. 275,
278(2015). This is not an "exceptional" case wherein the evidence Dreoonderates
against the verdict.

SPECIFIC ENUMERATION OF ERROR NUMBER ONE: The Court finds that,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Drosecution, the evidence
at trial was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find bevond a reasonable doubt
the essential elements of the crimes for which the Defendant was convicted,
namelv: Felonv Murder, Aggravated Assault, and Possession of Firearm During the
Commission of a Felonv.

In reviewing a conviction based upon an insufficiencv evidence claim. the

trial must be governed bv the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)
standard. The Jackson V. Virginia, supra, analvsis is far more restrictive than
the "thirteenth iuror" analvsis that is applied to general grounds for appeal. The
Court can't reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in the testimonv Rosser V.
State, 308 Ga 597, 600-01 (2020). The iurv was responsible for resolving any
conflicts in the testimonv, weighing the evidence, and drawing reasonable
inferences from the basic facts to the ultimate facts. Dean v. State, 273 Ga. 806.807,
546 s. E. 2d 499, 500 120011.

As indicated in the Court's response to the Defendant's General Enumeration

of Error, the offenses described in the indictment of this case were recorded on
"the video". (Trial, Vol. 1, EX#6,145).

SPECIFIC ENUMERATIONS ERROR NUMBER TWO AND THREE: Defendant's

Specific Enumerations of Error Two and Specific Enumeration of Error Three are so
similar the Court combines its response. In both afore-referenced enumerations.
the Defendant claim's error, insisting that the State introduced improper character
evidence bv urging: 1) that Defendant was holding his gun "gangster" style, and 2)

Page 3 of 7
that the manner that the Defendant was holding the firearm was similar to how
people "commit armed robberies".

The Court is not persuaded that references bv the State to the Defendant
holding the gun "gangster stvle" and holding the gun "akin to armed
robbers" amounts to introduction of improper character evidence, or improper
bad character evidence. In hindsight. the Court concludes that the State sought to
highlight or dramatize the manner that the Defendant held the gun, in an effort to
illustrate the intensity/offensiveness of the Defendant's action on the dav in
question. Again, the iurv saw "the video". I surmise, that the State wanted to be
sure that the iurors noticed how the Defendant was holding the gun. The
Defendant's suggestion that the State's statements were "a deliberate attempt to
make Def. Huff out to be a gang member who goes around committing armed
robberies" is a stretch and not subborted bv the record. Nowhere in the record is
there anv testimonv or suggestions that the Defendant was a "gang member" or
had anv "gang affiliation".

Further, challenges to the State's references to the Hun fail under OCGA 24-
4-402 and OCGA 24-4-404 because the gun was depicted in "the video", "the
video" was admitted into evidence.

SPECIFIC ENUMERATION OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR: The Defendant's

Specific Enumeration of Error Number Four urges that the Defendant was denied
effective assistance of Counsel because trial counsel failed to timelv obiect to the
State's references to "gangster stvle" and "the manner Defendant Huff held the
gun was similar to how people held firearms who commit armed
robberies". Enumeration of Error Number Four challenges the same subiect matter
as Enumerations of ErrorTwo and Three. In this instance however, the defendant's
asserts that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to obiect to the State's
references to "gangster stvle" and "holding a gun like an armed robber". The
appellate courts are clear, to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, the
defendant must prove both deficient performance bv counsel and resulting
preiudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 u. s. 668,687, 694, 104 . CT. 2052, 80 L.

Page 4 of 7
Ed. 2d 674 (1984). To Drove deficient performance, he must show that his attornev
" p er f or med at t r i al i n an ob i ec t i vel v u n r eas on ab l e wav c on s i d er i n g al l t h e
circumstances and in light of prevailing professional norms." Romer V. State, 293
Ga. 339, 34(3), 745 S. E. 2d 637 (2013l. The second part of the Strickland test
reduires that the defendant to "overcome the strong presumption the counsel's
performance fell within a wide range of reasonable professional conduct, and that
counsel's decisions were made in the exercise of reasonable professional
iudment". Marshall V. State, 297 Ga. 445,48(2). 774 S. E. 2d 675 (2015). Lastlv. to
establish preiudice, the defendant must show, "a reasonable probabilitv that, but
for counsel's unprofessional error, the result of the proceeding would have been
different. A reasonable probabilitv is a probabilitv sufficient to undermine the
confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U. S. at 694(111) (B), 104 S. Ct. 2052.
ln this instance, the defendant has failed to meet the first component of the
induirv. Defendant has failed to prove that trial counsel performed in an
obiectivelv unreasonable manner. "Failure to make a meritless obiection cannot
support a claim of ineffective assistance. Grier v. State, 313_Ga. 236. (Decided
Februarv 15, 2022). Accordingly, defendant's ineffective assistance claim fails.

SPECIFIC ENUMERATION OF ERROR NUMBER FlVE:The court has reviewed

and consider Defendant's Specific Enumeration of Error Number Five and finds no
evidence in the record to support his contentions. The Court agrees that there was
an occasion where trial counsel reported to the Court that members of the iurv
were congregating outside with members of the Davis familv. The court conducted
an inquirv. (Vol. 3, pgs. 708-709) The Court Deputies that were Questioned during
the induirv "stated thev believed the two groups were not speaking to each other"
(Def. MNT Brief pg. 24). Finding no basis to take anv immediate action, the iurors
were allowed to resume deliberations. The Court Deputies were requested to
m aintain a "presence" during break s to assure that there would was no
inappropriate contact with the iurors.

SPECIFIC ENUMERATION OF ERROR NUMBER SIX: The defendant has asked

this Court to reconsider a Motion to Set Aside the Verdict that filed in this July 15,
2020, bv the former trial counsel. The defendant is now asking that the Motion to

Page 5 of 7
Set Aside the Verdict be granted as a Dart of the Motion for New Trial. This court
has reviewed the Specific Enumeration of Error Number Six and the argument in
suDDort thereof. The argument urged is essentiallv the same argument Dreviouslv
submitted. The defendant cites no legal authoritv for his Dosition and fails to
identifv the legal shortcoming of the verdict. At best, the defendant urges that the
verdicts are inconsistent. However, it is this Court's understanding that our
Supreme Court abolished the rule against inconsistent verdicts. The defendant
argues he was found not guilty of Malice Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter,
therefore he can't be found guiltv of Felonv Murder.

Defendant's argument goes to essence of the Supreme Court's rationale for

abolishing the inconsistent verdict rule. "Because the appellate court cannot know
and should not speculate why a jury acquitted on the predicate offense Milam V.
State, supra, this Court adopted the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in
United States V. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984), "King V.
State, 278 Ga.122, 598 s. E. 2d 476 (2004).

Further, the court finds no basis for Defendant's contention that the iurors
were watching video loes (recappine each dav of the trial) produced bv King Randall
("Mr. Randall").

Accordinalv. this Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for New Trial in its
entiretv.

SO ORDERED, this 13th dav of June 2022.

DENISE MARSHALL
DOUGHERTYSUPERIOR COURT
DOUGHERTYJUDICIALCIRCUIT

Page 6 of 7
 21
W
I\.
EFILED IN OFFICE
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DOUGHERTY COUNTY, GEORGIA
SUR2019000726
1197
. . . . . : P
Thus rs to certify that I hav e thls 13th day of J une 2022 s ew ed the foregoing ¢ll=l'B|8Il* 2022 01 55 M
- `1`n **.\_
DENYING DEFENDANT' S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL on the followina vi a pEAc Hc em#-*-*--2 EvonneS.MullCloth
DoughertyCountyGGolgio
Dougherty County District Attornev's Office
Randall Sharp-Counsel for Defendant

Candee M. Nix .
Judicial Assistant

Page 7 of 7