## Facts

- Antiwan Lane was indicted with co-defendant Kevin Stallworth for malice murder and related offenses arising from the December 26, 2011 shooting death of Ivan Perez.
- The State’s theory was a murder-for-hire plot: Lane allegedly hired Stallworth to kill Hector Gonzalez for $10,000, but Stallworth mistakenly shot Perez, Gonzalez’s cousin.
- Stallworth (the admitted shooter) pleaded guilty to reduced charges before Lane’s trial and testified that Lane recruited and supplied him (including showing him locations, providing a gun, and furnishing a BMW).
- The State relied heavily on Stallworth’s credibility and on corroboration through other witnesses, including law-enforcement testimony and a civilian witness recounting Stallworth’s out-of-court statements linking Lane to the alleged plot.
- A jury convicted Lane on all counts; he received life without parole for malice murder plus consecutive terms on other counts.
- Lane moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and evidentiary error; after a hearing, the trial court granted a new trial based on multiple counsel deficiencies and evidentiary mistakes, including admission of hearsay.
- The State appealed, arguing that no individual error warranted reversal and that Georgia law did not permit cumulative-error review combining court error with counsel error.

## Issues

1. Whether appellate courts must assess the cumulative prejudicial effect of multiple errors by both the trial court and defense counsel, rather than evaluating each alleged error in isolation.
2. Whether, under the proper prejudice analysis, the combined effect of counsel deficiencies and evidentiary error required a new trial for Lane.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the order granting Lane a new trial.
- The Court overruled prior precedent to the extent it rejected cumulative-error review that aggregates trial-court errors with defense-counsel errors when assessing whether the defendant received a fair trial.
- The Court held that Lane showed at least two prejudicial instances of ineffective assistance and at least one significant evidentiary error, and that their combined prejudicial effect warranted a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- When determining whether a criminal defendant received a fair trial, courts must consider the cumulative prejudicial effect of multiple errors by both the trial court and defense counsel.
- Under Strickland v. Washington, prejudice may be shown where multiple counsel deficiencies, considered together, undermine confidence in the outcome; Georgia courts must not artificially separate that inquiry from the impact of trial-court error.
- Statements admitted under Georgia’s co-conspirator rule, OCGA § 24-8-801(d)(2)(E), must be made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy; post-offense narrative statements describing completed events are not admissible under that provision.
- Failure to impeach materially misleading corroboration testimony and failure to make adequate hearsay objections can constitute deficient performance where the prosecution’s case depends on a cooperating witness and contested corroboration.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia adopted a cumulative-error framework that requires evaluating the combined prejudicial impact of multiple trial-court and defense-counsel errors, and it affirmed a new trial for Lane because those errors collectively undermined confidence in the verdict.


State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10, 838 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. 2020)