Martin v. State

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Markle, Judge.
• Citation: Martin v. State, 360 Ga.App. 1, 860 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. App. 2021)
• Decision Date: 21 June 2021
• Docket Number: A21A0136
• Parties: MARTIN v. The STATE.

360 Ga.App. 1

860 S.E.2d 582

MARTIN

v.The STATE.

A21A0136

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 21, 2021

Certiorari Denied October 19, 2021

Sydney Rene Strickland, Atlanta, for Appellant.

John Richard Edwards, Marietta, John Stuart Melvin, Decatur, Flynn Duncan Broady Jr., for Appellee.

Markle, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Shian Martin was convicted of rape, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated sexual battery, and theft by taking in connection with an altercation involving his former girlfriend. He now appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion for new trial, arguing that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to (a) object to hearsay testimony that bolstered the victim's testimony, and (b) call witnesses who would have diminished the victim's credibility and given a motive for her to fabricate the allegations; and (2) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony under the guise of a prior consistent statement. After a thorough review of the record, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The evidence presented at trial showed that the victim began dating Martin in November 2016.¹ The relationship progressed quickly, and Martin moved in with her a few weeks later. Martin soon became controlling and verbally aggressive before escalating to physical abuse. By the following January, Martin had pushed the victim, grabbed her by the neck, and brandished a knife when he became angry, and the victim asked him to move out of her apartment.

Although Martin had moved out of the home, the victim and Martin continued to see each other and have sexual relations while the victim planned to end the relationship. Then Martin began to show up at the victim's apartment uninvited and prevent her from going to work. In early February, Martin arrived at the victim's apartment upset, and he refused to allow her to leave. The victim remained trapped for about four days, during which Martin became abusive, grabbing her and yelling, before calming down. At times, Martin forced her to have sex with him. As a result of Martin's conduct, the victim missed several days of work. By the end of the four days, Martin allowed the victim to leave with him, and the two went grocery shopping and to Martin's college to meet with a professor. Despite her desire to end the relationship, the victim told no one about these incidents and did not contact police.

One evening in late February, the victim and Martin watched a movie in her apartment, and the victim allowed Martin to spend the night. The following morning, Martin wanted to have sex with the victim, but she declined, and Martin became angry. Over the next several hours, the two argued, and Martin threatened the victim with knives, forced his penis into her mouth with such force that she vomited, and raped her more than once. After they had sex the first time, Martin dragged the victim by the hair into the bathroom, where he made her shower and cleaned her vagina with a loofah glove. Martin also placed his hands around her throat so tightly that she urinated on herself, and he pressed his thumbs into her eyes. At one point, he told her that they would both die that day, and after the victim suggested they use pills instead of the knife, Martin gave her a handful of Benedryl. But Martin never dropped the knives during the encounter, leaving cuts on her arms and leg.

Eventually, Martin calmed down and they had a discussion about their relationship and how Martin's behavior would cause the victim to lose her job. The victim became angry, and she threw a heavy picture frame at him. Both Martin and the victim recorded their conversations, in which Martin asked if the victim was his girlfriend, and the victim complained that Martin cut her with a knife and that she was going to get fired from her job due to Martin's behavior. The videos contain no mention of the rape, and they show the victim freely moving about the apartment and toward the door. Shortly after recording themselves, the victim was able to escape while Martin was distracted. After the victim fled, Martin started to chase her until she went to the apartment complex leasing office. While she waited for police, she saw Martin drive away in her car.

The victim spoke with police and recounted the attack. A nurse performed a sexual assault examination, which showed marks on the victim's neck consistent with strangulation, redness at the back of the throat and around her eyes, a missing fingernail, and scratch marks consistent with the use of a knife. She also conducted a vaginal examination, which showed injury in the area, consistent with the victim's complaints. A DNA swab showed Martin's DNA in the victim's vagina. A crime scene technician collected evidence from the apartment, including knives and the remnants of Benedryl pills, a loofah glove and Martin's watch in the bathroom, a broken fingernail, and a broken picture frame. Police also obtained a warrant to search Martin's phone and Kindle, uncovering several videos showing Martin and the victim having sex, and that Martin searched the police department's website for wanted persons the night after the attack.

Thereafter, Martin was indicted for rape, two counts of aggravated assault arising from the use of a knife and his hands to strangle the victim, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and theft by taking of the victim's car.²

At trial, the victim testified about the events, and both the police officer who responded to the attack and a detective who interviewed the victim testified to the victim's allegations. The State also presented testimony from a licensed counselor, who explained that abusers use various methods to control their victims, which often leads to physical force or sexual abuse to maintain power and control. According to the counselor, victims avoid calling police because they fear it will make the abuser angry, and they may feel shame or embarrassment about the relationship. She further explained that victims may often try to wean the abuser off as they exit the relationship in order to minimize the danger and appease the abuser, and they may want to return to the relationship or stay in contact with the abuser after they escape.

The State also submitted portions of the numerous jailhouse phone calls between Martin and the victim following Martin's arrest. In those calls, Martin repeatedly professed his love for the victim, stated he was obsessed with her, asked her not to come to court to testify against him, apologized for the attack, and admitted he made a mistake. In one call, Martin told the victim that he had a problem and "dealt with it the wrong way." In another call, he explained that he went "ballistic" that day when the victim said she did not want to have sex with him, and he admitted pulling her hair and putting her through "trauma." In yet another call, Martin told the victim that her body belonged to him and she could not keep it from him, or somebody was going to "get cut."

The jury convicted Martin of rape; one count of aggravated assault related to the use of the knife; one count of battery, as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault arising from strangulation; aggravated sexual battery; and theft by taking the victim's car. Martin moved for a new trial, raising the same errors he alleges on appeal. Following a hearing, at which Martin's counsel called several witnesses to testify to the victim's motive, the trial court denied the motion for new trial. Martin now appeals.

1. Martin first argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure (1) to call witnesses who would have explained the victim's motive to fabricate the allegations, and discounted her credibility, which was critical to the case; and (2) to object to the detective's hearsay testimony. We are not persuaded.

To succeed on a claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, [Martin] must show both that his attorney's performance was deficient, and that he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668, 687, (III), 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under the first prong of this test, counsel's performance will be found deficient only if it was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances and in light of prevailing professional norms. And under the second prong, prejudice is demonstrated only where there is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different. A "reasonable probability" is defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is sufficient to defeat a claim of ineffective assistance, and it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong. And although both the performance and prejudice components of an ineffectiveness inquiry involve mixed questions of law and fact, a trial court's factual findings made in the course of deciding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim will be affirmed by the reviewing court unless clearly erroneous.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Green v. State , 302 Ga. 816, 817-818 (2), 809 S.E.2d 738 (2018). Additionally, when we consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, "the trial court, not this Court, is the judge of witness credibility, and a trial court's denial of an ineffectiveness claim based on conflicting evidence is not clearly erroneous." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hartley v. State , 299 Ga. App. 534, 538 (2), 683 S.E.2d 109 (2009) ; see also Grant v. State , 295 Ga. 126, 130 (5), 757 S.E.2d 831 (2014). With these standards in mind, we turn to Martin's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

(a) Witnesses.

Martin asserts that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to investigate or call his college professor, a childhood friend, his grandmother, and his fiancee, all of whom would have disputed the victim's claim of an on-going...