Chapple v. State Supreme Court of Georgia - Criminal Conviction Appeal

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: February 1 7, 2026 S25A115 8. CHAPPLE v. THE STA TE. E L LINGTON, Justic e. Johnn y Ch apple app eals his convi ctions for f elony murder an d othe r crimes in co nnectio n with the shoo ting death o f Latoria Waller. 1 At trial, th e chi ef issu e was w hether C happl e shot an d kil led Wall er or wheth er, as Chapple asse rted in defen se, Wall er 1 The crimes occurre d on February 15, 2 022, and on March 22, 2022, a Baldwin County gra nd jury indicted Ch apple for malice murder, two coun ts of felony murder predi cated on aggr avated assaul t and possess ion of a firearm b y a convicted felon, aggravated assa ult, and possessio n of a firearm by a convicted felon. After a jury trial th at ended on April 6, 2 023, the jury found Chapple not guilty of malic e murder b ut guilty of the r emaining counts. On April 6, 2023, the trial court se ntenced Chapple to life in prison wit hout the possibility of p arole on the felony mu rder verdict predicat ed on aggravat ed assault and to ten co nsecutive years in prison for the firear m offense. The other felony murder co unt was vacated by operation of law and the aggrava ted assault count wa s merged f or sentencing purposes. On April 26, 2 023, Chapple filed a motion for new trial, which he a mended with new a ppellate counsel on November 5, 2024. The trial court denied the motion for new trial, as am ended, on March 26, 2025. Chapple filed a tim ely notice of appeal, and the case was docketed to this Court’s August 20 25 term and submit ted for a decision on the briefs. NOTICE: T his opini on is subje ct to mo dificat ion res ultin g from motion s for re consi derat ion unde r Supre me C ourt Rule 27, the Court ’s recons ideratio n, and edit orial rev isions by t he Report er of Decisi ons. The ver sion of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geor gia Report s, desig nated as th e “Final Co py,” will replace a ny prior version on the Court’s websi te and docket. A bound volu me of the Georgi a Reports will con tain the final a nd officia l text of t he opinio n.

2 shot h ersel f with a 9 mm handgun and t hen pla ced the handgun i n the bo ttom draw er of a d res ser befo re sh e b ecame inc apaci tated. On appeal, Chap ple contends th at th e tri al cou rt erred in den yin g his motio n in limine to e xclude e xpert te stimony, that the tri al cou rt erred in app lyi ng an inco rrect st andard when ruling on his mo tion in limine, that the tria l court erre d in overrulin g his continuing witn ess obj ecti on, an d tha t hi s trial cou nsel provided cons titutio nally inef fect ive assistanc e. For t he reasons tha t f ollow, we affirm. 1. The evide nce at trial s howed that i n Febru ary 2 022, Chapple and W aller were in a relat ionship and resid ing to gether in Milledg eville, G eorg ia. On Febru ary 15, 2022, aroun d 2:46 a.m., an offic er with the Mil ledgev ill e Pol ice Depar tmen t re sponded to th eir home rega rdin g a cal l th at sh ots h ad been fir ed. He foun d Wal ler lyi ng m otionl ess an d unres pon sive on the fl oo r of a bed room. Wal le r was taken to a l oc al emerg ency roo m, wh ere she di ed fr om a gu nsh ot woun d to th e h eart. The door to the bedro om, whi ch had a l arg e crack i n it and a scuf f mark on i t, w as off i ts hi ng es, an d was l ayi ng

3 on the floo r in fron t of a dres ser. A wi tness who left the house th at night at about 1: 30 a. m. testified that, befor e she l eft, she had gone to Walle r’s bedro om, did not rem ember th e do or bei n g off its hin ges, and th ough t that she wou ld h ave remem bered if sh e had seen it in that condit ion. Chapp le’s br other, Ca rlos Simmons, a nd his wife, Sav allia Be ll, were in a ba ck bedr oom of th e hou se at th e tim e of th e sh ootin g. Chapp le cam e into t heir b edroom, wok e them u p, an d sai d, “[c] all 9 - 1- 1. She’ s been shot.” Chapp le never sa id that Walle r had s hot hersel f, an d he d id not com e t o th eir be droom at any time b efor e he told th em tha t Wal ler had been shot. Chapp le th en ran out t he fr ont door of th e hou se an d dow n th e ro ad, but s ubse quen tly return ed to the hou se. Short ly after th e shooting, a law en fo r cemen t offic er enco untere d Chapple in the stree t in front of his house, and Chapple told him that he had he ard a gunshot b ut had not see n a gun. La ter that sam e morn in g i n an in terview at the pol ic e stati on, Ch apple told a dif feren t of ficer th at Wall er “j u mped on him” and slappe d him and t hat he told her t hat he was going t o “[p]ack his s**t up and

4 leave. ” He al so t old th e offi cer th at he th en went an d talk ed wit h Bell and that, while he was walking b ack to his bedr oom, he hear d the sou nd of s omeon e fall ing in the bedro om, but th at he n ever hea rd a gunsho t. A few day s afte r Wal ler ’s death, Chapple ’s wife, from whom he had been separat ed f or som e ti me, w as inv ited by C happl e ’s a nd Waller ’s lan dlor d to go t o the hous e and coll ect wh ateve r of Chapp le’s belo ngings tha t she wante d. Chapple ’s wife we nt to the hous e with her moth er an d neph ew. Th e moth er testi fied th at sh e was sea rchin g for Ch apple’s W - 2 fo rm wh en sh e saw a re d not ebook in a nights tand in Chapple and Wal ler’s bedroom, wher e Wal ler was shot. When s he looke d inside t he note book, th e moth er saw an unda t ed letter, which she des cribed as “sa d.” During the m ot he r ’s direc t exam inati on, the prose cuto r r ead th e let ter i n to evi dence. It said, among othe r things, that W aller kne w that she ha d “disapp oin ted” h er mo ther; that s he w as “s orry f rom [her] h eart”; that her father did no t show her love because he put other thing s “befo re [her] ”; th at sh e loved h er uncl e wh o had died i n 2020 an d

5 misse d him, but that she was “on the wa y”; that she had “fo und a bette r pl ace” an d w oul d see th em “wh en [they] go t th ere.” On e of Waller ’s co - w orkers, Am anda Tip ton, as wel l as Ch apple’s bro ther, Simmons, and his sis ter, Jamie Chap ple, test ified that they reco gnized t he handwriting in the le tter as that of Walle r, while Bell tes tified t hat it was not Wa ller’s hand writing. GBI Agent Amelia Maddox testifi ed that s he and anot her agen t sp ent t hree and a hal f hours searc hing Chapp le and Waller’s bed room fo r evid en ce o n the day of th e sho otin g and t he y did not f ind a noteb ook or any w ri tten doc uments when t hey searched th e nightstand Jamie C happl e t estifi ed a bout Wall er’s m ent al condi tion, sayin g th at, i n Novem ber 2021, sh e had a con vers ati on wi th Wal ler in which Wa ller told her that she “felt like she was in t his by herse lf” and th at “ no on e r eally car ed wh en sh e r eally ne eded th em” a nd that, on another occasi on, Wal le r told he r that she fel t “ready to go sometim es.” On t he oth er han d, Ti pton tes tif ied th at on F ebru ary 14, when she an d Wal ler drove t o and f rom w ork toget her, W alle r was like she was “any o ther day,” “smiling, ca lm, humb le” and

6 “happy.” L atony a Chap ple, wh o tes tifi ed tha t s he was cl ose t o Waller, tes tifi ed th at she s poke w ith Wall er by ph one a bout 10:0 0 p.m. on Vale ntine’s Da y, that Wa ller was “ha ppy, she wa s laughing, havi ng fu n,” an d that sh e an d Wall er ma de plan s to get t ogethe r the next day to c elebra te th e bir thday of Laton ya’ s dau ghter.. Wh en asked if W alle r se emed depr ess ed on V al entin e’s n ig ht, Bel l respon ded, “ No. A lway s happ y. She was happy. ” In addition, anothe r witnes s who ar rived a t Ch apple and Waller ’s hom e ab out 9: 30 p.m. on Vale ntine’ s Day said that she and Walle r had fun ma king some video s that night, disc ussed going t o work t he next day, and exchan ged ph one nu mbers. There w as ev iden ce adm itt ed at tri al that Wall er an d C happl e had a sometimes tumultuo us rela tionship. One of Chapple’s friend s tes tified that Cha pple and Wa ller argue d “ all the t ime ” a nd that he had seen Chapp le an d Wal ler pu sh each oth er. Bel l added th at she was aw are that Ch apple an d W al ler h ad a rgumen ts and con fli cts. And Wal ler’s aun t, Soni a Simm on s, wh o was very clos e to W aller, testifi ed th at, du ri ng th e sum mer of 2021, Wall er cal led her and w as

7 “cr ying” and “ upset.” Wa ller told he r Chapple was hitting her and asked Simm ons t o come g et h er, whi ch sh e did. Agen t Maddox also testi fied that d urin g h er search of Chapple and Wal ler’s bedroom she found a 9 mm hand gun in the “b otto m right - han d draw er” of a d ress er an d a 9mm cart ridg e casi ng on th e bed. F orens ic ev i dence show ed th at th e c artri dge c asin g, as wel l a s the bul let tak en f rom W aller’ s bo dy du rin g the au topsy, w ere fi red from th e 9mm h a ndgun. In add ition, Agent Madd ox testi fied th at Walle r’s blac k nightgown ha d a small cir cular b ullet hole in it. She add ed that, if t he gunshot t hat caused the defec t had b een a p ress contact or clos e - c ontact gun shot, sh e woul d hav e expect ed t o s ee a much bigg er d efect in th e f abri c. T he ag ent furt her testified th at she exami ned Wall er’s bl ack nig htgow n wi th in frared ph otogr aphy, expla ining that she did not find any s oot or stip pling on W aller’ s nightgo wn, add ing tha t this “mean t that th is w as not a cl ose r ange or conta ct gu nsh ot woun d, wh ich m eans th at it h ad to be fu rther than abou t 18 i nches ” to tw o fe et. In a ddit ion to t he infrar ed light tes ting of t he nightgow n, Age nt Mad dox used a “BlueC lue

8 presum ptive gun powde r par ticl e test,” to sea rch fo r gunpow der parti cles on Wall er’s n igh tgow n. That tes t was neg ati ve. Bec ause o f the lack of “an y sort o f so ot ” and “ any sort of st ippling, ” and be caus e the de fect i n the fabri c was “ so c lean and circul ar, ” “ identica l ” to what happ ened whe n s he would shoot at “ the ran ge f rom thr ee yard s away,” Agent Maddox concl uded t he g unsh ot to Wal ler’s ch est “ was not clos e range,” “ not cont act,” and not “ se lf - inflic ted.” GBI Spec ial Age nt Brya n Smith did not ex amine Wall er’s black polyes ter nightgow n for g unpowder dep osits, but he t esti fied, over Chapp le’s obje cti on, tha t h e f ired a 9mm handgun into black polyes ter f abri c w hil e in contact wi th th e fabri c an d from dist ance s of t hree, six, nine, twe lve, e ighteen, a nd twent y - four i n ches and t he n exami ned the fabri c u sin g in frared ph otog raph y to d eterm ine wheth er he could det ect gu npow der p arti cles, soot, or st ippl ing in the f abric. Ag ent Smi th tes tifi ed th at the c onta ct sh ot creat ed “a lot of tea ring” in the fabr ic, which was co nsiste nt with a “contac t range gun shot.” H e added cont act gu nsh ots w ere “mos t co mmon ly” seen i n sui cide cas es an d th at th e cont act gu nshot did n ot leav e “s oot” on

9 the f abric becau se, w ith a con tact gun shot, “the re’s no gap” for g ases from th e g unsh ot “to com e out.” H e add ed th at, as th e 9mm han dgu n was fi red fa rther f rom th e fabri c, th e gases and soot from the gunshot dissipa ted a nd did no t go into t he hole in the f abric, ca using a more ci rcu lar h ole i n the fab ri c than the con ta ct gun shot an d leavi ng a “soot ri ng” on th e fa bric that g rew wi der and f aint er wi th dista nce and disappea red entire ly when the gunshot originat ed twenty - f our in che s from the fabri c. Forens ic tes ting show ed tha t bot h Wall er and C hap ple had gun shot resi due on th eir han ds, and the cri me la b empl oyee w ho conduct ed thos e t ests t estif ied th at he was not su rpris ed th at gunshot resid ue appear ed on Waller ’s hands, as gunshot re sidue can extend up to five to ten fe et in the dir ection of the gunfir e. The m edical exa min er testi fied t hat th e bu llet t hat s truck Waller en ter ed th e top of W all er’s l eft ch est an d trav eled at a downw ard ang le abou t 24 i nches, f rom lef t to ri ght a nd fron t to b ack, lodgi ng on the back, rig ht si de of h er bo dy. H e add ed th at he exami nes gu nsh ot woun ds to de ter min e wheth er th ey w ere a cont act

10 woun d; a clos e - range wound, meaning that t he gun is fire d from just off th e su rfac e of t he ski n t o si x in ches fr om t he surf ace; an inter mediat e wound, me aning th at t he gun is fir ed fro m about s ix inch es to thr ee fe et from the sk in; or an indet erminate wound, whe re there is no evi den ce of any of th e previou s clas si fication s. The medical exam in er tes tifi ed th at W aller ’s wou nd was not a c onta ct woun d becau se there was “no s earing ” or “muz zle i mpressi on. ” There w as also n o evi denc e of a cl ose - ran ge w oun d on Wal ler due t o the abs ence of soot and s ea ring, and the wou nd w as n ot an interm edia te on e, as th ere wa s an abs ence of s tippl in g. D ue to the abs en ce of fe atures of contac t, clos e rang e, or inter mediat e range wounds, the me di cal ex amin er c oncl uded th at Wal ler’s wou n d wa s of ind etermi nat e rang e. In resp ons e to ques tion in g from d efen se couns el, t he m edical exam iner agreed that Wal ler ’s g uns hot wou nd was not “imm ediat ely i ncap acitati n g”; th at she w oul d “hav e been able to mov e ar ou nd a l ittle bit after she was shot”; and that it was “possibl e” that Wal ler wou ld h ave been “abl e to l ean forw ard and put t he gun in the drawer,” explaining t hat she would have had

11 about t en s econds to d o so. Th e med ical exami ner also adm itted that he had see n one case in which a person shot hims elf and p ut the gun in a draw er befor e falli ng over, bu t h e added that h e h ad perf orme d over 1,00 0 autop si es and cou ld on ly give on e su ch exampl e. Wh en defen se cou nsel asked if it w as rea sonabl e to char acteriz e this c ase as a su ici de, th e medical exam ine r s aid, i t was “po ssibl e,” bu t th at his “strong c once rn wou ld be th e abs ence of any e vi dence of clos e - range firing” and t hat “ ba sed on [his] experi ence, [he] wou ld exp ect to see so mething. ” Finally, t he medic al examine r testif ied that he conclu ded th at t he ca se w as a h omi cide, “ [b]as ed primari ly on th e physic al f indings, direct ion of the wo und tr ack, [and] the abs ence of any featu res of cl ose or in term ediat e range fi ring.” 2. Cha pple contends t hat the trial court imp roperl y permi tted Agent S mith to test ify as an expe rt u nder th e Daube rt 2 standard and OCGA § 2 4-7- 702(b) about his use of inf rared p hotograp hy to tes t 2 See Daubert v. Mer rell Dow Pharm aceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

12 black pol yes ter fa bric for gunpo wder part icles, soo t, or stippling. 3 We conc lude that the tria l court did not abuse it s discretio n. With t he amendme nt of OCGA § 24 -7- 702 in 2022, “ the G ene ral Assem bly ext ended to crim in al case s the f ederal stand ard o f admis sibility o f expe rt tes timony a rticulat ed in Daubert... and its progen y.” Arnold v. State, 321 Ga. 43 4, 451 (2025) (qu otati on ma rks omitted). In dete rmining the admissib ility o f exper t testimony under the Daubert stan dard, th e trial c ourt a cts as a gatek eeper, ass essi ng both th e w itn ess quali ficati ons to testify in a pa rtic ular a rea of ex pe rtise and the r ele vancy and reli abil ity of the pr offer ed te sti mony. And th e trial court examines reliabilit y through a conside rati on of many fact ors, i nclu din g wh ether a theo ry o r te chni que can be tes ted, wh ether it h as been s ubje cted to p eer review and pu bli cation, th e know n or p otent ial r ate o f error f or th e the ory or tech ni que, the gene ral deg ree of accep tance i n t he rel evan t sci en tific or profe ss ional comm unity, and t he expert ’ s ra ng e of experi enc e and tra ining. 3 We h ave recently explained that “O CGA § 24 -7- 702 was amended in 2022 to apply in all proceedin gs rather than only in all ci vil proceedings” and that “[w]ith tha t amendme nt … the G eneral Assembly extended to criminal cases the federal standard of admissibi lity of expert t estimony articulat ed in Daubert... and it s progeny.” Arnold v. State, 32 1 Ga. 43 4, 451 (2025) (quotatio n marks omitted).

13 Id. “The determ ination of whet her a witnes s is qualified to re nder an opin ion as an exp ert is a legal det ermin ation for th e trial cour t and wi ll not be di stu rbed a bsen t a man ifest abuse of di scret ion.” Id. (quotati on ma rks omitted). We conclu de that the t ri al cour t did not abus e its discr etion in de terminin g that Agent S mith’s te stimony satisfi ed the re qu iremen ts of Dau bert and OCGA § 24 -7- 702 (b). Before t rial, the State n otifi ed C happl e that i t wou ld seek to introd uce exp ert testim ony thr oug h Agent S mit h related t o the us e of infra red p hot ogra phy t o det ect gu nshot soo t, pa rticl es, and residu e on black polyest er clo thing, like t he night gown wor n by Waller at th e ti me of h er dea th. C happl e mov ed to exclu de th e testim ony, and th e t rial cou rt h eld a pre - t rial h eari ng on the ma tter. At tha t hear ing, Agent Smith te stified that he had exte nsively studie d the use of inf rared light so urces, that he has ta ught ot hers at the GB I to u se i nfrar ed and alt ernat e lig ht sou rces, and th at h e had c onduct ed “ at lea st 80 to 100 i n frared lig ht sou rce exami nation s of evid ence.” He explaine d the techniq ue fo r using infra red light ing

14 to disc over g un powd er dep osits, sa id th at it is the p rim ary tool for e xamining “dar k - colo red fabri cs for gunp owder depo sits, ” and added that the techniq ue he us es is the o ne use d by other s in the fie ld. Agent S mith testif ied that “ there ’ s a weal th o f rese arch on in fra red light so urce s being used t o ide ntify g unpow der de posi ts and bl ood goin g proba bly back to the mi d ‘ 80s at le ast”; th at he stay ed cu rren t “ with those p eer review s and p ublica tions ”; an d that th e work that he did in this case was “c o nsistent with t he public atio ns and resea rch.” According t o Smith, the GBI had use d infrared lig hting on d enim and cotton fabri c but h ad n ot u sed infr ared l igh tin g on polyes ter f abri c. Agen t Smi th test ifi ed th at “th ere’ s no dou bt th at gun powder parti cles, w hethe r it ’s on p olyes ter, cott on, metal, whate ver, will still ab sorb light. ” He ex plained t hat inf rared photog raphy was hes ou t dark m at erials so th at th e mate rial looks white a nd tha t “ [i] t was just a qu es tion of wheth er polyes ter wou ld absor b lig ht, or r efrac t lig ht, or r eflect li ght” t o cr eate a w ashe d ou t backg round on wh ich he coul d see the gu npowd er pa rticles. He add ed that his exp erime nt showed t hat polyes ter “did abs orb light

15 to was h out the backg rou nd and lo ok al most w hi te o r gray lik e cot ton and ot her substanc es.” S mith added tha t the technique he used to conduct thos e te sts was g en erall y accep ted w ithi n th e scien tifi c comm unity and that his exper iments we re in line with be st practic es in the f ield of stud y and nati on ally accep ted. In deny ing Chapple’ s motion in limine, the tria l court found that, “ following the ana lysis of [Rule ] 702 as it’s ampl ifi ed by Daubert, ” Ag ent Smith’ s test imony was releva nt and relia ble; that his “sc ientif ic or technic al knowle dge is go ing to help the trier of fac t under stand t he evidence at issue”; and “that t he test imony will be based on suffi cien t fa cts or d ata, ” as “[t ]hi s appea rs t o be an empiri cal t est b ased on th e sci enc e as it h as b een a ppl ied rou tin ely in this a rea.” The co urt also expla ined that Ag ent Sm ith ’s tes timon y ap pears t o be base d on … suffi cient f acts or data that h e was able to d isc ern bas ed on his le arnings as well as the ones he co llecte d himself. That tes timon y t hat is presen te d appear s to be the produ ct of relia ble p rin ciples and methods. As I sai d earlie r, th is area of inqu iry, t his disc ipline appear s to be settle d an d cl ear. Fin all y, the ex per t appe ars t o h ave reliabl y ap plied the p rinci ples t o th e facts of t his ca se, or at lea st to a limited s ubset of fact s in this case, whic h

16 could b e rel evant or h elp ful to the t rier of fa ct. The tr ial cour t’s ruling d emons trates t hat “it applied the applicab le sta ndard in t his case, asses sing both t he witne ss’s qualif icat ions to testify in a pa rti cul ar area of experti se an d the relevan cy and reliabi li ty of th e pro ffere d tes tim ony. ” Arnold, 321 Ga. at 453 (quot ation m ark s and p unctu ati on omi tted). 4 Chapple cont ends, howev er, th at th e trial c ourt abused its dis cretion in pe rmitting Agent S mith ’ s te stimo ny, conte nding that the eviden ce at the hear ing showed that his testi mon y was unr eli able becau se h e h ad not us ed inf rared phot ograph y on pol yest er fa bric to id entify soo t, stippl in g, and g u npowd er res idue. H owever, bas ed on Agent Smith ’s 4 Chapple also enu merates as error t hat the trial court applied the former standard s et forth in Har per v. State, 24 9 Ga. 519 (1 982), for determining the ad missibility of sc ientific evidence, ins tead of the current standard of Dau bert and OCG A § 24 -7- 7 02(b). Chapple bases this clai m on a statement by the tri al court at the heari ng on the motio n in limine regardi ng whether H arper or Daubert w as the more lenient stand ard. However, as the above discussion illustrates, the trial court correctly applied Daubert and OCGA § 24 -7- 702(b) in this case. S ee Garrison v. State, 31 9 Ga. 711, 725 – 26 (2024) (explaining “that we appear n ot yet to hav e expres sly analyzed the extent to which the Daubert standard and the for mer Harper standa rd differ” and declining to analyze the diff erences in the stand ards i n that case, “other than to clarify th at they are not the same”). According ly, this separate enumeration lacks merit.

17 testimony that i nfra red ph otog rap hy i s desig ned to wash out col ors so th at da rk m ateri als look whi te and t hat his exp erime nt was conduct ed accord in g to b est pr act ices i n the fie ld and natio nally accep ted stan d ards, we concl ude t hat the t rial cour t did n ot abus e its dis cretio n in finding t hat Age nt S mith’s t estimony wa s relia ble. Moreov er, contra ry to C happ le’s conten tion, al thoug h Ag ent Sm ith did no t conduct his te sts with the mur der weapon a nd a piece of fabric f ro m the victim’s polyeste r nightgo wn, the t est was neverth el ess adj usted to th e fac ts o f thi s case, wh ich inv olved a fa tal gunshot wound wit h a 9mm hand gun thro ugh a bla ck polyest er nightgo wn. Again, we conc lude t hat the tr ial cour t did not abus e its discre tion in a dmitt ing Agent S mith’s t estimo ny unde r Dau bert and OCGA § 2 4- 7- 702(b). See Arn old, 321 Ga. at 452 - 453 (conclud ing that th e trial co urt appl ied the correct stan dard in as sessi ng an exper t’s qua lifications to test ify and thus did not abuse its d iscretio n in admit ting the testimo ny). 3. Chapple contends t hat t he trial c ourt e rred by o verruling his cont inuing witne ss obj ection and permitt ing three crime lab rep ort s

18 to go out w ith th e deliberat ing jur y. More specif ical l y, he con ten ds that th e cour t erred i n sending out the t wo rep orts f rom the GBI conclu din g that sampl es fr om th e han ds of Chap ple an d Wal ler cont ained gunsho t resid ue and t he GB I firea rms report co ncluding that the 9mm bull et recov er ed fro m Wall er and the cartri dg e casi ng found on th e v icti m’s b ed w ere f ired from th e 9mm handg un found in the d resser. W e conclu de that t he trial court di d not err. The cont inuing witne ss rule “regulat es which d ocume nts or recor dings go into the jury room with the jur y during delib erat ions and whic h ones do not.” Lof ton v. Stat e, 310 Ga. 770, 785 (20 21) (quot ation m arks omi tted), di sapprove d in part o n other gro unds b y Outlaw v. State, 311 Ga. 396, 401 n.5 (2021). We hav e ex plai ned th at “ the co ntinuing w itness r ule is direc ted at wr itten test imony tha t is heard by th e jury wh en re ad fr om th e wi tness stan d,” pointing o ut that “ [t] he ru le is bas ed on th e prin cipl e that it i s u nfair an d pl aces undu e emph asis on w ritten tes timon y that h as been read to th e ju ry for th e wri tin g to be s ent out w ith th e jury to be re ad agai n du ring deliber ation s wh er eas or al tes tim ony i s recei ve d by th e j ury only

19 once. ” Muse v. State, 316 G a. 639, 65 9 (202 3) (quotation mark s omitted). We hav e note d that “[t ] h e types of docu men ts that h av e bee n held sub ject to t he rule includ e aff idavits, d epositio ns, writ ten confes sion s, st atem ents, an d dyi ng d eclara tion s. ” Lofton, 31 0 Ga. at 786. Her e, the cri me lab report s in questio n “w [ere ] not w r itt en testim ony an d di d not d erive [the ir] ev identi ary val ue sol ely f rom the cre dibility of it s maker. ” Ro binso n v. State, 308 Ga. 543, 553 (202 0). Instead, t he rep orts w ere “ origi nal docu me ntary ev iden ce, and w [ere] properl y all owed to go o ut w ith th e jury. ” Id. (hold ing that a lette r writte n by a fellow inmat e of the defend ant that said that the def endan t had tol d him abou t the cri mes was original documen tary eviden ce”). Se e also Adams v. State, 284 Ga. Ap p. 534, 536 -5 37 (2007) (holding tha t it did not vio late the continuing w itnes s rule to all ow a bl o od test rep ort f rom the crime l ab to go out w ith th e jury, as th e repo rt was “ direct evide nce of the m anner in which a scien tific tes t wa s con duct ed an d of the resu lts th er eby ob tain ed ” and that “[t] h e proscri pti on on the ju ry ’ s pos ses sion of wri tten

20 testim ony d oes n ot ext end t o docu ments w hi ch are th ems elve s relevan t an d admi ssi ble as ori gin al docum enta ry evi den ce in a cas e ” (quot ation m arks omi tted)); Tanner v. St ate, 259 Ga. App. 94, 9 8 (200 3) (same). Chapp le rel ies on Robert s v. Sta te, 282 Ga. 548, 552 (20 07), t o argue that the cri me lab repo rts i n th is cas e cou ld not g o ou t wit h the ju ry as origi nal docu men tary evid ence. B ut R obert s involve d a repor t of a do cum ents exam in er that s umm aril y sai d th at a test had been con duct ed an d the opin ion of the exam iner. We conclud ed tha t the rep ort th erefor e did not “am ou nt to evi dence of th e mann er in whi ch a t est w as c ondu cted and does not mak e the docu men t origi nal d ocum entary evid ence. ” Id. at 552 – 53. H ere, in co ntras t to Robert s, the cri me l ab r eports stat ed the ty pes of s cienti fic test s conduct ed and th e res ults of the tes ts and did not conta in an op inion of the per son conduc ting the t est. For ex ample, the g uns hot residu e repor ts say th at t he sam ples from th e hand s o f Ch apple and Wall er were “ex ami ned by sc anni ng el ectron micr oscop y/e nerg y disp ersi ve spectr oscop y … an d anal yzed fo r el emental com posit ion and parti cle

21 morphol ogy” for gun shot res idue part icles; that su ch part icles “ are sin gle, di screte, m icros copi c parti cl es, m olten i n morp holog y, th at cont ain the elements le a, barium, and ant imony”; and that gunsho t residu e pa rticl es were f oun d in t he s ampl es. We conclude that t he repor ts in this cas e wer e ori gin al documen tary ev iden ce that the trial c ourt prop erl y all owed t o go o ut w ith t he ju ry. 4. Cha pple contends that tria l counsel was constitut ionally ineffe ctiv e in s everal re spects. W e disag ree. To pr evail on a cl aim of in effe cti ve ass istan ce, a d efend ant must p rove both th at the perf orm ance of hi s law ye r wa s defi ci ent and t hat he was prej udiced b y couns el ’ s defi cie nt pe rforman ce. Stric kland v. Washingt on, 466 U S 668, 6 87 (1984). To satis fy the defici ency pron g of th e Strickla nd test, the defend ant “mu st sho w that hi s at torney per formed at trial in an obje ctive ly u nreason abl e way c onsider ing all the circumsta nces and in light o f prevailing profess ion al n orms. ” Lofton v. State, 309 G a. 3 49, 360 (2 0 20). “This requir es a defen dan t to ove rcom e th e str ong pr esum ption tha t couns el ’ s pe rfor mance fell wit hin a wid e rang e of reason abl e

22 profess ion al con duct, and th at coun sel ’ s decisions were made in the exerci se of r eason able p rofess ion al ju dgmen t.” Scott v. State, 306 Ga. 417, 41 9 – 20 (201 9) (quota tion mark s omitted). “De cisi ons reg ardi ng trial ta ctics and stra tegy may for m the bas is f or a n in effectiv enes s claim only if they wer e so pat ently un reason able th at n o comp eten t attorn ey w ould h ave follow ed su ch a cou rse.” Thomas v. State, 31 1 Ga. 706, 714 (202 1) (qu otati on m ark s omitted). The defe ndant must also sh ow th at th e defi cien t perf ormanc e prej udi ced th e de fense, whi ch requi res s howi ng th at “th ere i s a reas onabl e pro babi li ty that, but for counsel ’ s unprofess ional error s, the result of the proce eding would ha ve been diff erent.” St rickl and, 466 US at 694. If an app ellant “f ails to me et his bur den of pro ving eithe r pro ng of the Stric kland test, th e rev iewi ng cou rt does n ot h ave to ex amin e th e other p rong.” Williams v. St ate, 315 Ga. 79 7, 806 (2 023). (a) Cha pple first claim s that tria l counse l was constitut ionally ineffe ctiv e by fai l ing to ob ject to testim ony o f Agen t Maddox t ha t amoun ted to im proper charact er ev iden ce. At trial, wh en def ense c ouns el was qu estion in g Ag ent Maddox

23 about t he th oro ugh ness of her search of C happ le and Wall er’s bedro om, th e ag ent s aid th at sh e c ollect ed “ pertinent inf ormatio n. ” Defe nse couns el aske d whether that include d anything wit h “the person ’s n ame” o n i t. Agen t M addox resp onded tha t “it incl udes t he person ’s n ame, it can be th ing s of ev iden tiary val ue l ike th e Gangst er Discip le dra wing that was o n top of the night stand. I t could also includ e the suit case of marijuana that was fo und in the back y ard.” D ef ens e couns el did not obje ct to this testi mony or ask for it to be s tru ck. We co nclude t hat Chap ple has failed to sh ow that t ri al cou nsel perfo rmed d efici en tly by fail ing to move t o stri ke A gent Maddox ’s tes timony. Trial couns el te stified at the moti on fo r new t rial h eari ng that hi s gen eral trial s trat egy was not t o dr aw atten ti on to pre judicia l matters. Although he did no t “think” or “believe ” that he engag ed in tha t analys is with re gard t o the Gangst er Disc iple tes timony, tha t is not cont rolling, becau se “ if a reason able la wyer might ha ve done what the actua l lawyer did — whet her fo r the sam e reason s gi ven by th e a ctual law yer o r di fferen t reason s en tirel y —

24 the act ual l awye r can not b e s aid t o hav e per formed in an obj ecti vely unreas onabl e way.” Sco tt v. Sta te, 317 G a. 218, 223 (202 3) (punc tuatio n and quo tation mar ks omitt ed). Here, an objecti on to Agen t Madd ox’s tes timon y coul d have draw n more att enti on to t he alleg ed pr ejudi cia l matt er, so not m ovi ng to stri ke the tes timon y was not obje ctivel y un reason able and d id not c onstitut e de ficient perf orma nce. See Scott, 317 Ga. at 224 (hold ing that trial co unsel’ s choice not to draw further attentio n to a prej udicial matter could have b een objecti vel y reas onabl e a nd str ategi c and was not defi cient perf orma nce, even tho ugh co unsel did no t have a st rategi c reason for not reque sting a limit ing instruc tion o n the matte r). Moreov er, with regard t o Ag ent M addox ’s stat emen t abou t finding ma rijua na in th e backy ard, tria l counse l testif ied at the motio n for new tr ial hearing that he h ad a s trateg ic r eason for not moving to strike that te stimony, explaining tha t he co uld use the mariju ana te stim ony to at tack the credibi li ty of the GB I agents, if he ne eded to, on th e g roun d th at “th ey coul dn’t even prov e, y ou know, wha t was going on with s uitc ases of mar ijuana sit ting right

25 outs ide the prope rty line.” “T he matter of w hen an d how to rais e objecti ons is g eneral ly a m att er o f tri al st rategy,” Tyso n v. State, 31 2 Ga. 585, 599 (2021), and he re, we c annot concl ude t hat C happl e has shown t hat couns el ’ s decisi on to forgo an obj ection “w as so p atentl y unreas onabl e th at n o compe tent l awy er woul d hav e made t he s ame dec ision.” Id. (ho lding tha t counse l’s str ategic decision not to obj ect to alleged ly impro p er ch ara cter evi denc e was not patently unreas onabl e an d not defici ent perfo rmanc e) (quotati on m arks omitted). (b) Chap ple n ext contend s th at the search warr ant f or Ch apple and W aller ’s ho me was n ot su pport ed by pro babl e caus e and that tria l counsel wa s const itutiona lly ineffec tive in fa iling to mo ve to suppr ess the 9 mm handgun fo und purs uant to the search war rant. “ When w e eval uate a clai m th at cou nsel was defi cien t for faili ng t o file a moti on to su ppre ss, we as k wh ether a m oti on to suppres s on the spe cific basis p ropose d by the appel lant wou ld clearl y hav e su cceed ed if cou nsel had rai sed i t. ” Moss v. State, 3 22 Ga. 757, 767 (202 5) (quotati on mark s omitt ed). “ In deter mining

26 wheth er pro babl e caus e exists t o issu e a sea rch warrant, the magistrate ’ s task is s impl y to make a pr acti cal, common - sense dec ision whet her, give n all the cir cumstanc es set f orth in the affid avit be fore h i m, there i s a f air pr obabi lity tha t cont raband or eviden ce of a cri me wi ll be found in a par ticu lar pl ace.” Co pela nd v. State, 3 14 Ga. 44, 49 (2022) (quotati on m arks omit ted). M oreov er, “the test f or pr obabl e caus e is not a hy perte chni cal on e to be employ ed by l eg al tech ni cians, bu t is bas ed on th e factu al a nd practi cal con sid erati ons of ev eryd ay l ife on w hich reason abl e and pruden t men a ct.” State v. Britton, 316 Ga. 28 3, 286 – 87 (20 23) (punct uatio n and quota tion mar ks omitted). “On appellat e review, our dut y is to det ermi ne if th e m agi strate h ad a ‘su bstanti al basis ’ for concl udi ng th at prob able cau se exis ted to i ssu e the se arch warran t, ” and the magi strat e’s d eci sion “ to issu e a sear ch war rant based on a fin ding of proba ble c ause i s enti tled to subst anti al defer ence by a re view ing court, an d even doub tful cases s houl d be resol ved in favo r of up holdi ng a magi stra te ’ s determ ination t hat a warran t is pro per. ” Copeland, 314 Ga. a t 49 (p un ctuati on and

27 quotat ion ma rks omi tted). Here, Ch appl e argues that the han dgu n was su bject t o suppres si on be cau se th e af fidavi t f ail ed to esta bli sh a “ prob able caus e nexus ” betw een th e han dgu n an d th e hou se. Ch apple’s clai m of inef fecti ve a ssist ance f ail s beca use a m otion to s upp ress on thi s groun d woul d not cl earl y hav e succ eeded. I n the w ar rant affidav it, a dete ctive w ith the Bal dwi n Coun ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce said t hat he res ponded to the sce ne of the crime s on the night of the shoot ing, that the ad dres s he resp ond ed to was Waller a nd Chapp le ’s residen ce, that Wall er had died from a gunsh ot woun d suffer ed at the coup le’s ho me on the night of the c rime s, that Chap ple wa s in the ho use on the night o f the crim es and told another per son in the hous e that Wal ler h ad been s hot, t hat th e pe rson th en s aw Ch apple leave th e h ouse, and tha t the pers on returned to the hous e, find ing Walle r lying on the floor. Given th ese circu mst ance s, if tria l counse l had fi led a m oti on to sup press on the grou nd n ow a sse rted by Chapp le, the mag istrat e rev iewi ng th e wa rrant wou ld have b een authori zed to concl ude th at th ere was a fair prob abil ity that

28 incrimina ting ev idence, including the ha ndgun, would b e found at Chapp le a nd Waller ’s hous e. See Prince v. State, 295 Ga. 788, 7 92 - 93 (2 014) (h oldi ng t hat p robabl e cau se to sear ch the de fend ant’s hous e was est abli shed by info rmatio n in the a ffida vit that the vic tim had b een fou nd be aten to de ath, that items belonging to the defe ndant’s g irlfriend had been f oun d near th e vic tim ’s body, that the d efenda nt and his girlf riend f led to Florida when they le arned that th ey w ere wan ted fo r ques tio ni ng, and tha t the g irlfrie nd told invest igato rs that she was wit h the defe ndant on t he night o f the murders and let him use her van tha t night). Because Chap ple has not est ablis hed that a m otion to su ppres s wou ld h ave been succes sful, this claim o f ineffec tive as sist ance of co uns el fail s. Se e Moss, 322 Ga. at 767 – 68; Pr i nce, 295 Ga. at 793. (c) Fina lly, Chapple co ntends that the cumulat ive effect o f trial court errors and t rial c oun sel d efici enci es requires his co nvictio ns to be rev ersed. B ut, as explai ned above, Chapple has fa iled to establish any tri al court erro rs or i nstan ces i n wh ich tri al coun sel w as prof essio nally deficie nt. For this r eason, “the re a re no erro rs to

29 aggreg ate, an d h is cl aim of cum ulati ve error al so f ail s.” Blocke r v. State, 316 G a. 56 8, 583 (20 23) (qu otati on ma rks om it ted). Judgment a ffir med. All the Justices concur.