Samuels v. State - Murder Conviction Appeal

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: February 1 7, 2026 S2 5A 1404. SAMUELS v. THE STATE. L AND, Jus tice. Appe llant Dyan ta D erall Samuels challe nges his 2022 convi ctions for malice murd er and ot her crimes in co nnection wit h two se parat e inci dents: the Nove mber 23, 20 20 shooting death o f Kareem Smal ls and a June 20, 2 020 shooting involving Jamie Delan ey. 1 Samue ls argue s that t here wa s insuff icient e vidence to 1 On January 5, 2022, a Chatham Coun ty grand jury indicted Samuels for malice murder (Count 3), f elony murder (Coun t 4), a ggravated assaul t as to Delaney (Count 1), aggravated assault as to Smalls (Coun t 5), three counts of possession of a fir earm during the commissio n of a felony (Counts 2, 6, and 7), and fleeing or attempti ng to elude a police officer (Count 8). This Court previously denied S amuels’s application for interlocutory appeal. At a trial from August 8 to Au gust 19, 2022, th e jury found Samuels guilty of all charges. The trial c ourt sentenced Sa muels to s erve life in prison with the possibil ity of paro le for Count 3, five years for Count 6 to be served consecutively to Co unt 3, ten y ears for Count 1 to be serv ed consecutively to Count 6, five years f or Count 2 to be ser ved consecutively to Count 1, and one year for Count 8 to be served consecut ively to Coun t 1. Count 4 (felony murder) was vacated by ope ration of law, C ount 5 (aggravate d assault) merged w ith 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 suppo rt his co nvictions, that t he trial co urt err ed in ad mitting eviden ce of h is dru g deali ng, that the trial cou rt pl ainl y erred i n admit ting a dete cti ve’s testi mon y reg ardi ng re corded jai l ph one calls, that his trial co unsel wa s ineff ective for failing to ob ject to that testim ony, an d th at thes e err ors co ll ectivel y preju dic ed him. F or th e follow in g reason s, we affirm. 1. View ed i n th e lig ht most favor abl e to th e verdi ct s, the record shows as follows. On Ju ne 20, 20 20, Del aney and h er six - year - o ld daught er were driving in Cha tham Co unty when a silver Toyota Camry w ith deal er t ags “alm ost T - boned ” thei r veh icl e. Delan ey cont inued dr iving and t he Toyota “zi gzag [ged]” d own the ro ad bef ore cutt ing her of f and stopp ing at a stoplig ht in fro nt of a conv enience store. The d river of the Toy ota, wh o m Delaney descri bed as a ma n in his thir ties or ear ly fortie s, got out of his car and yelled while Count 3, and Count 7 (possessio n of firearm during th e commission of a felony) merged with Count 6. On August 2 2, 2022, Samuels filed a motion for new trial, which was am ended by new cou nsel on Marc h 14, 202 5. After a hearin g, the trial court de nied the motion. On M ay 12, 2025, Samuels filed a notice of appeal. T he case wa s docketed to this Court’s A ugust 2025 term and su bmitted for a decision on the briefs.

3 walking towards D elaney ’s car. Delaney began to dri ve arou nd th e Toyot a, and the driver pulle d out a gun from the Toyot a and fired three sh ots a t Delan ey’s c ar as she drov e aw ay. Delan ey was uninjur ed. Surve il lance fo otag e fr om a nearby conveni ence s tore, which was played f or the jur y, sho w s the Toyot a d river stop in t he road, st ep ou t of th e car, an d moti on toward s the ca r behind him. The car behi nd th e Toyot a then drove around him. Th e driver of th e Toyota th en bri efly re e nter ed th e Toy ota and exit ed again, look ed to his lef t, and shot at the othe r car as i t dr ove away. The driv er then g ot back into th e Toyota and dr ove ou t of frame. Although no arr est was mad e, t wo sh ell casin gs wer e r ecover ed fr om th e scene. Delan ey did not kn ow the d riv er of the T oyo ta. Ap proxi mat ely one ye ar la ter, Delan ey was s how n a ph otogr aph ic l ineu p that include d Samue ls, b ut she did no t identif y any o f the people in the lineup a s the s hooter. At tri al, D elaney testi fied th at Samuels w as “not th e sho oter. ” However, Kell y Jeff ers, who knew and inte ract ed with Sa muels, la ter identifie d the sho oter in t he vide o as Sa muels. At trial, an othe r associ ate of S amuel s’s, S aman tha Hammack,

4 denie d identif ying Samue ls as the man in t he surveillanc e foota ge and te stified that she only told investigat ors that “ it could be” Samuel s, wh o d rove a “d ark gray” Toy ota Camry, not a “ lig ht gr ay” car. Body cam era footage f rom Hammack ’s i nterv iew wi th invest igato rs, which was played f or the jur y, indicat ed that Hamma ck told investigat ors that t he man in the surveilla nce footag e “lo ok [ed] a lot like” Samuels a nd that s he had seen him d rive a car “ that’s very, v ery sim il ar … a sil ver car li ke that.” Several mont hs lat er, on t he ev eni ng of Novembe r 23, 2 020, Carita Scot t wa s talk ing with Kare em Sm alls out side of h er apartmen t in the Kayton Homes area o f Sav annah. While Sc ott a nd Small s talk ed, a red D odge Ch ar ger wi th two occ upan ts “ci rcled ” them “th ree or f our ti mes.” Scot t tes tifi ed th at, a bout 20 mi nu tes afte r talking wit h Sma lls, she heard a “couple of gunshots.” Sco tt then s aw a m an w earin g bla ck clo thi ng an d black an d yel low sh oes come “ running” f rom the directio n of the gunsho ts. The man go t into the pas seng er si de of th e “da rk r ed” Ch arger that S cott had see n earlie r, wh ich “s ped o ff” f rom the s cene.

5 Grady Sh aw a nd Fred erick Kin law also wi tnessed the shoo ting. Sha w testifie d that he was sta nding on his p orch and talking to Kinlaw, his neighb or acros s th e stre et, w hen Small s’s v an passed betw een them d own the st reet. Shaw th en “h eard a commo tion” t hat soun ded l ik e “someb ody argui ng” and s aw th e lig hts on Small s’s van turn on as a man app roach ed the fron t of the van and shot int o it. Kinla w and Sh aw the n saw Sm alls’ s va n “fly up the s tree t” an d c rash in to a ch urch van. Sma lls got out of his va n and “c olla psed” i n th e st reet. Smalls die d from his gunshot wo unds. Kinlaw and Shaw als o s aw a “bri ght orang e” o r “b urgu ndy” Dod ge Charg er leav ing th e area immed iatel y aft er th e sh ootin g. On Nov ember 24, a n inve stigator wit h the Sava nnah Police Depart ment id entifie d a red Dodge C harge r in the Ka yton H omes area during t he time o f the Smalls s hoot ing using surv eillance cameras. The Char ger, which had Sout h Carolina t ags, wa s ident ified as a ve hicl e own ed by a c ar r ental se rvic e. GPS record s from th e r ental com pany p laced the Ch arger a rriving a t the scene of the Smalls shooting at a pproximately 11:0 1 p.m. on Nov ember 2 3

6 and lea ving the are a six minutes la ter, less than on e min ute be fore police recei ved a 911 cal l ab out t he sho otin g. Inve stigat ors determi ned th at the C harge r was rented to J ames H arrel l and his wife at the time of the shooting. Inves tigat ors w ent to the ca r rental locati on, w her e th ey o bserved Harrell retu rn th e C harger an d le ave the rent al of fice with a red Chrys ler 300. Har rell t esti fied at trial that h e wou ld regu larly rent vehi cl es fo r Samu els i n his wife ’s name, that he retu rne d the C harge r and rented the C hrys ler 300 for Samue ls, a nd that he del ivere d the Chrysl er 300 to Samue ls. That s ame day, Savan nah poli ce attem pted a traf fic s top on the Chry sler 3 00, wh ich by that tim e had been del iv ered by H arrell to Samue ls and had pulled int o a gas sta tion. When offi cer s approa ched th e Chrysl er, Sam uel s “revv[ed] th e eng ine real aggressi vel y” an d started to d rive aw ay. B elieving t hat Samue ls inten ded t o flee, an officer brok e the back wi ndsh ield of the C hrys ler with his nights tick to distra ct Sa muels and t o “mar k” the ve hicle for aerial surv eill ance. Samuels the n l ed offi cers on an “extrem ely reckl ess” h igh - sp eed ch ase on to a nd off I nters tate 16. After g etting

7 stuck on a d irt road, Samuel s aba ndon ed the Ch rysl er, fled on foot, and hi d in a ne arby w arehou se w her e he w as ev ent uall y di scovere d and tak en i nto custody. During h is cust odial inte rview, which was pla yed fo r the jur y, Samue ls told police that he wa s “high” whe n police app roached him in the Chr ysler, and t hat he fled becaus e he thou ght poli ce were shoo ting at him when the b ack windshie ld wa s br oken. Samuels admitte d that he posse ssed a n “AR pist ol” b ut claim ed t hat he threw it onto the highway d uring the car cha se. Samuel s al so admi tted to driving a red Dodge C harg er pri or t o the C hrys ler an d to b ein g at Kayton Homes w hen Small s was s hot. Samuels cl aim ed, howe v er, that he w as “smokin ’ w eed ” with an unidentif ied gr oup of people fo r a “good 45 min utes” or “a good 20 to 15” min utes before Sm alls was shot. W hen Samue ls “heard som e sh ots ” he “ got the f **k on” becau se he kn ew poli ce w ere comin g, bu t he d id no t rem ember how he l eft. Samue ls state d that he “hear d” that Sma lls had been sho t and kille d that night. A GB I expert w itn ess tes tifi ed th at th e shel l casi ng s recov ered

8 from th e Sm alls shooti ng w ere fir ed f rom th e sam e weapon as the shel l casin gs rec overed from th e D elaney shooti ng, an d that b oth sets of s hell casi ngs were fir ed fr om th e sam e wea pon, a G lo ck .45 Auto. Durin g a s earch of S amu els ’s apa rtment, l aw en for cemen t found a box of .45 - caliber amm unition and a gun box fo r a Glock 23.40 - cali ber handgun, but no gun. A search of Samu els’s c ell phon e also rev eale d photos of sever al Glock firearm s of unknown calib er and a si lver sed an wit h “s imilar featur es” and re sembli ng the “s ame make an d mod el” of th e veh icl e used i n th e Del aney shooti ng. The St ate pl ayed for the j ury sev eral j ail cal ls m ade by Samue ls. D uring o ne of these call s, made prior to S amuel s’s arres t for Smal ls’s murder, Samuels dire cted his gir lfriend to “g o back ” home “ and pa ck up all my s **t.” 2. Sam uels a rgu es th at th e evi denc e was insuffic ient to sus tain his convi ctions as a matt er o f Ge orgi a statu tory law un der OCGA § 24 - 14 -6. 2 (“To war rant a convi ction on circumst anti al evi dence, th e 2 We do not review sufficiency for Co unts 4, 5 and 7 because t hose counts were either vacated by operati on of law or merged. S ee Anderson v. State, 299

9 pro ved facts sha ll not only be consistent wit h the hypo thesis of guilt, but sh all ex clud e every othe r reas on able h ypothe sis save tha t of th e guilt of the acc used.”). We disagr ee. “Under G eorgi a statu tory law, a con victi on m ay rest s olely on circum stan tial evi dence i f that evi dence ‘excl ude[s] eve ry oth e r reason able h ypo th esis sav e th at of the gu ilt of the a ccu sed. ’” Rashad v. State, 318 Ga. 199, 206 (2 024) (qu oting OCG A § 24 - 14 - 6). “N ot every hypoth esis i s a reason able one, however, an d the evi dence need n ot ex clud e eve ry con ceivabl e infe renc e o r hy pothesi s – o nly those th at are re asona ble.” Id. (cleaned up). “ Further, whet her any altern ativ e hyp othes es ar e r eason able and wheth er th e circum stan tial evi dence exclu des an y such hy pothes es ar e qu esti ons for t he jury and we will not dis turb the jury ’ s findings on t hose ques tions unless they are insup portab le as a matter of law.” Le e v. State, S25 A100 2, slip op. a t *3 (Ga. Dec. 9, 2025) (2025 WL 35 201 50) Ga. 193, 196 n.4 (2016) (defe ndant’ s claims abou t sufficiency of evide nce were moot for crimes tha t were vacated by o peration of law or t hat merged with murder). Samuels d oes not challenge t he sufficiency of the e vidence as to Coun t 8.

10 (clean ed up). “ An d we hav e obse rved that s uch qu esti ons ab out th e reason ablen ess of hypoth eses that are for the j ury to d ecid e incl ud e the p ossibility of anot her perpet rator.” Id. (cle aned up). Turning firs t to the agg ravated ass ault (Cou nt 1) an d posses sion of a fi rearm durin g the commi ssi on of a felon y (Cou nt 2) convic tions in conne ctio n with the Delane y shooting, Samuels argues that the su rveil lan ce foot age w as “g rain y,” t here was no cel l - phone ev iden ce t yin g Samu els to th e loca tion of t he s hootin g, an d Delan ey d enied that Samu els w as th e shooter. How ever, Jeff ers admit ted to id entifying Sa muels a s the ind ividual in t he silve r Toyota C amry on t he surv eil lance footag e of the Del aney shooti ng. A nd altho ugh Hammac k denied identifying S amuels as the shoot er at tri al, sh e testi fi ed that sh e ha d seen Samuel s d riv e a “ dark g ray ” Toyota C amry. Despi te Sa muels ’s protes ts regardi ng Jeff ers’s an d Hammack’s testim ony and Del aney ’s tes timony th at Samu els w as not t he shoot er, “it is ax iomat ic that re solving e vident iary co nflicts and a ssessing wi tnes s cred ibility a re wit hin t he exc lusive pr ovince of the jur y.” McC oy v. St ate, 315 Ga. 536, 543 (202 3) (c itation

11 omitted). Accordingly, the e vidence was s ufficient to sup port Samue ls’s co nvictions o n C ounts 1 and 2. S ee OCGA § 24 - 14 - 8 (“ The tes timony of a single wit ness is gene rally suff icient to estab lish a fact.”). Turning next to the malice murder (C ount 3) and poss essio n of a fire arm dur ing the com mission of a felony (C ount 6) co nvictio ns in conne ction wit h the Sma lls shoot ing, Sa muels arg ues that the eviden ce di d n ot prov e beyond a reas onabl e d oubt that h e sh ot and killed S malls b ecause it did no t exclud e the re asonable hypot hesis that S amuel s wa s mer ely pr esent at Kay t on Homes whe n Smalls was sh ot by s ome one el se. S amuel s hi ghli gh ts incons istenc ies in t he evide nce, as well a s evide nce that was consist ent wit h his altern ativ e hypothes is. But as ex plained ab ove, it is the j ury’s role to resol ve evi denti ary con flict s an d assess wi tness credi bil ity. See McCoy, 315 Ga. at 54 3. Mor eover, Samuels’s argu ments about the Sta te ’ s failu re to presen t certai n typ es of evid ence, i ncl udi ng the gun used in the s hooting, e yewit ness test imony identif ying him as the shoot er, o r a c onfessi on, are u nav aili ng becau se “t here is n o

12 requir ement that the State prove i ts cas e with any par ticul ar so rt of eviden ce, so l ong as th e evid ence p resen ted is c omp etent.” West on v. State, 320 G a. 47 2, 474 (20 24) (citat ions and punc tuatio n omitted). Here, th e jury h eard testimo ny th at GPS tr ackin g dat a placed a red Dodg e Charger th at h ad be en rented for S amu els at th e scene during t he shooting and leavi ng imm ediatel y ther eafte r. Samu el s admit ted he was pre sent during t he shoot ing and gave inc onsiste nt answers as to h ow lon g he w as pres ent befor e the s hootin g t ook place. Sco tt t esti fied that a r ed Charg er ci rcled h er and Smal ls seve ral time s shortly be fore the shooting a nd that an indiv idual r an from th e di recti on of the s hooti ng and fled in a red Ch arger. O ther eyewitnesses also saw a red or orange Charg er leav e the scene immedia te ly fo llowing the shoo ting. A n exper t witness analyzed the shel l casin gs col lect ed from both the De laney a nd Smalls sho otings and determi ned that the fire arm u sed in t he D elane y sh ooti ng w as the s ame firea rm used in the Sma lls shoo ting. At least on e asso ciat e of Sa muels ide ntified him a s the indiv idual in t he sur veillanc e footag e of th e D elan ey sh ooting, an d a phot o of a sil ver se dan wi th

13 simi lar fea tures to the T oyot a Ca mry w as foun d on S amuel s’s cel l phone. Ammunit ion was f ound at Sa muels’ s apartment ma tching the c aliber of bullet t hat kille d Smalls, photo s of multiple Glock firearm s w ere foun d on S amu els’s cel l p hone, and Samue ls a dmitted to t hrowing a gun o ut of the windo w during his ca r chase. The e vide nce presen ted at trial ther efor e sh owed n ot on ly th at Sam uels was at the scene of the Sma lls shoo ting, but also tha t he fled in a high - speed ch ase afte r the shoo tin g, th rew aw ay a gun dur ing the pursuit, and used t he murder weap on in a prior shoo ting. Tho se indi cia of g uil t str ong ly su gges t that Samuel s w as a perpet rato r and not merel y pr esen t. Accor dingly, ther e was suff icient e vidence fro m whi ch th e jury cou ld rej ect as un reason able Sam uels’s alte rnate theo ry that anot her individua l shot S malls a nd instead f ind beyond a reas onable d oubt that Samuel s shot and k illed Smalls. See Wilson v. State, 319 Ga. 550, 5 53 – 54 (2 024) (evi dence su ffi cient to s upp or t defen dant ’ s murder convic tion where d efenda nt was in the vic inity of the shoo ting, he was seen dri ving car con nect ed to sh ooti ng a fe w min utes befo re a nd a sh ort dis tan ce aw ay from the s hootin g, an d a

14 shel l casin g found at t he s cene wa s ejec ted from th e sam e fi rearm as a she ll casing f ound in t hat ca r); Pay ne v. St ate, 273 Ga. 31 7, 318 (2001) (evi denc e su ffici ent t o auth orize rati onal trier of fa ct t o fin d accus ed gu il ty bey ond a reas onabl e dou bt o f murd er and p osses sion of a kn ife an d to exclu de ev ery re ason able in fer ence and h ypothes is except gu ilt of a ccuse d, d espi te l ack o f an y ey ewitn ess testi mony that d efen dant stabbe d victi m or that he pos sessed a k nife). Theref ore, this claim fa ils. 3. Samuel s arg ue s that th e tri al cou rt abus ed its dis creti on in admit ting evid ence of his drug dealing ac tivity. When this is sue was argued i n th e tri al cou rt, th e pr osecu tor s tated tha t during a d rug traf ficking inve stigat ion of Samuels, law enf orceme nt ident ified three p eople who k new Sam uels an d thos e peo ple identif ied Samue ls as the ma n on the video of the Dela ney shoo ting. The pro secut or argued th at those three people, Gi lber to Hern and ez, H ammack, an d Jeffe rs, w ere con necte d to Sam uels as “eithe r dru g purchas ers from him or a drug s upplier to him” and th at “the fa ct th at [Samuels] i s involve d in some le vel of drug transac tions is rele vant in this case

15 … and is t he connectio n between th e se individ uals and Mr. Samue ls.” Samuels argue d that “[d]r ug traffic king is not relevant in this c ase ” and th at evi dence of Samu els’s drug activ ity w as n o t intrins ic and wa s inste ad a way to “simp ly to get in the traff icking.” The tri al cou rt fo und t hat becaus e the witnes ses were “comi ng i n here to identify Mr. Samuels in conne ctio n with the first inc ident, the f irst s hooting, whic h is co nnect ed to t he second shoot ing by the ballis tics e vidence,” t he te sti mony that Samue ls ’s “r elations hip to thes e folks might inv olve dr ugs” was “intrinsic to this ca se” as the “only means the Stat e has to id enti fy Mr. S amuels i n th eir the ory of the cas e.” T he t rial cour t furt her found t hat “[OCGA § 2 4 -4- ]403 doesn’ t keep it ou t eith er” be caus e while the evide nce “is certainly pre judicia l to Mr. Samuels … it is not unfair ly prejudicia l to the point that i t outw eighs th e prob ativ e valu e.” Duri ng open in g statemen ts, the prosecu tor stated that the video of the Delaney sho oting “ was sho wn to t wo individ uals know n to pur chase n arcoti cs f rom the D efendant. ” Outsi de the pres enc e of the jur y, Samuel s moved f or a m istria l, arg uing that as a resu lt o f

16 the sta temen t, S amuel s “no l ong er has th e presu mpti on of inn ocence. Now he’s a drug d eal er si ttin g at the table accu sed of [m] urder. ” The tr ial cour t denied t he motion for mistrial, stating that “the way the wit nesses who identifie d [Samuels ] in the video know him t o be able to ide ntify him is intr insic to … the case ” and is “be ing admitt ed to tell the s tory of how’s he ’s ident ified … in these cases.” The jury re turne d to the courtro om and opening stat ement s resumed, with th e Stat e not ing that the witne sses “know [S amuels ] becaus e they pur chase n arcotics f rom hi m ” but that “this is no t a drug t rial. This is a tria l about [m] u rder an d how th ey connect thos e two ind ividuals.” During tr ial, Hernandez testi fied t hat h e met S amuel s in early 2021, and th at he met w ith Sam uel s “once or twice a day ” over eig ht months to “buy[] s tuff from h im.” The prosecu tor th en asked, “W hat did you buy from h im?” an d Sam uel s’s t rial c oun sel object ed. Bef ore the t rial c ourt coul d rul e on the obj ection, H ernan dez an swere d “Jus t a coup le of pills. And tha t’s it.” Samu els m oved to s trike Hernan dez’s ans wer. Th e tri al c ourt d enied S amu els’s m otion,

17 sta ting that it would let the test imony in “to allow t he State to attemp t to prove the n atur e and cl oseness o f the rel ations hip. ” Lat er in his te stimony, Her nande z denied ever telling inve stiga tors that the ind ividual in the surve illance f ootage of t he Delane y shooting looked li ke Samu els. Jeff ers t estifi ed that she kn ew Sam uel s by th e name “B lack.” When the p rose cut or ask ed Je ffers about th e nature of her rel ationshi p wi th Samu els, Jeff ers tes tifi ed th at she “ sold h im drugs … [a]t lea st twi ce a m onth ” for a yea r. Hammack was not asked and did n ot p rovide any d etail abou t th e na tu re of h er an d Samue ls’s r elationship. Samue ls argue s that the ev idence of his alleged drug dea ling act ivity was inadmissib le as intr insic evide nce because i t wa s not lin ked to th e charg ed cri mes. 3 “ It is wit hin the tria l cour t ’ s sound discr etion to de termi ne wh ethe r to admit such evi dence, so w e review a t rial c ou rt ’ s ruling ad mitting e videnc e as intrins ic for a n abuse of th at di screti on. ” Harris v. State, 310 Ga. 37 2, 377 – 78 (2020) 3 Wheth er this evide nce could have been properly admitted under O CGA § 24 -4- 404(b) is not at issue in this case, and the State does not contend th at it gave the notice requ ired for Rule 40 4(b) evidence.

18 (clean ed up). E ven if a trial cou rt doe s abu se it s dis cretion in admitti ng eviden ce, that e rror w arrants rev ersal “onl y if i t was harmf ul.” Jiv ens v. State, 31 7 Ga. 8 59, 86 3 (20 23). “ Th e test f or dete rmining nonc onstit utiona l harmless error is whethe r it is hig hly proba ble th at th e er ror di d no t cont ribute to t he v erdi ct.” Id. (clea ned up). In consi deri ng w heth er a trial court ’s err or w as harmfu l, “w e weig h the evi dence as we w ould ex pect reason abl e ju rors to h ave done s o, as opp osed t o ass umi ng th at they t ook the mos t pro - guilt possibl e view of ev ery bit of ev ide nce in the cas e.” Boothe v. State, 293 Ga. 285, 289 (20 13). Here, ev en as sum ing that the trial court abus ed it s discre tion in admit ting evid enc e of Samue ls’s alle ged dr ug dealing a ctivit y as intrins ic, it is highly pro bable that any such erro r did not cont ribute to the verdi ct. As detaile d in Divisi on 2, t he circums tantia l ev id ence properl y admi tted ag ains t Samu els was s tron g, and a lthough Samuel s’s all ege d drug act ivi ty wa s “cer tainly no t help ful” to his case, the details “were no t unusually inf lammat ory.” S ee Rober ts v. State, 315 Ga. 229, 2 39 (20 22) (concluding that “ the evidence th at

19 was prop erly ad mitted against Roberts, alt hough circ umstant ial, was qui te st rong,” such that “i t w as hi ghly p robable ” th at the imprope rly admitted “ext ra detail s of the armed rob bery did not contri bute t o the verdic ts”). And a lthough Sam uels ar gues in his brie f that the evide nce of his alle ged drug act ivity was har mful becaus e the S tate emph asi zed it i n openin g stat emen ts and closing argum ents, 4 the S tate l ess ened any h arm in openin g stat emen ts by clar ifying to the jury that “this is not a drug tria l. This is a tr ial about [m] urder and how the y connec t those two individua ls.” Cf. Floy d v. State, 32 1 Ga. 717, 726 (20 25) (con clu ding that any er ror i n admit ting ga ng - related evide nce was ha rml ess w here wi tnes s “imme diate ly clarifie d his sta tement ”). As for closin g arguments, t he prosecu tor ’s stat ement that S amuels ca lled Je ffers “a s nitch” and “[l] iken[ed] her to a man w ho was murd ered fo r talking” mad e no 4 Samuels also poin ts to the State ’s expla nation of a jail phone call where he referred to Jef fers as the “ New Jack City” movie character “Nin o Brown ” as evidence of harm. These re ferences to “ Nino Brown,” however, w ere made by the prosecutor du ring a sidebar conference ov er whether t o admit these jail phone calls and were not made in th e presence of the jury. When Detect ive Patrick Skinner was later asked, in the prese nce of the ju ry, to explain why Samuels had referre d to Jeffers as “ Nino Brown,” he made no reference to drug activity.

20 refer ence t o Sam uels ’s drug act ivi ty, onl y Jeff ers’s. U nder t hese circum stan ces, we conclude that it is highly pro bable t hat any errone ousl y admi tted evi den ce of Samuel s’s dru g acti vit y did n ot contri bute to th e j ury’s verdi ct. See Jac kson v. State, 306 Ga. 69, 80 – 81 (2 019) (concludi ng t hat ha rm from the err oneou s admi ssion of defen dant ’ s prior bad act was minimal because, am ong oth er reason s, th e re cord f ailed to sh ow th at th e pros ecutor emph asiz ed that evidenc e in his closing argume nt). 4. Samue ls argues t hat the trial co urt plainly erre d in admittin g Dete ctiv e Patrick Skinner’s commen tary o n Samu els’s jail phone c all s becau se it was cu mul ative of Samu els’s ow n statem ents on the recordings, it was not relevant, a nd it was la y witness o pinion testimony that d id n ot satisfy O CG A § 24 -7- 701(a). S amuels also argues that his tri al cou nsel was i neffect ive for fail in g to obj ect to Detecti ve Skin ne r’s tes timon y. Detec tive Skinne r testif ied that, as par t of his investiga tion, he review ed r ecord ed jai l comm uni cati ons m ade by S amuels. During D etecti ve Sk in ner’s direct testimo ny, the State play ed a s eries of jail

21 calls betwee n Samuels and o thers in which the Smalls sho oting was discussed. I n one call, Sa muels’s girlfrie nd told him tha t “they” were trying to “charge ” Samue ls with “ [w] hateve r h appen ed in Novemb er” an d th at “it’s on the news.” In respon se, Samu els asked his girl friend wheth er “ [t]h ey hav e my face on there. ” Later in t he phone cal l, Sam u els’s g irlfri end added in an other call er named “J - man,” and Samue ls told him, “I need a lawye r.” A fter “J - ma n” left the ca ll, Samuels asked his girlfrie nd to read “ everyt hing they’re saying” on the news. When asked whether Sam uels “ever d en[i ed] comm itting the murd er when he is to ld he’s being cha rged wit h it” on the jail phone call, Detecti ve Sk inner tes tified “no.” The St ate late r played anoth er jail call betwe en Sa muel s and a male caller abo ut Sam uels ’s con versation w ith his gi rlfri end an d the new ch arges. W hen asked whether Samuels denie d killing Smalls during th e ca ll, Detec tive Skinne r tes tified “[n]o, he d oes not. ” The St ate then play ed a jail ph one call betw een Sam uel s and a male c aller i n w hich the caller told Samu els th ere w as a vi deo of hi m

22 “dump ing out” a t “51 6 Veter an’s, Wes tlake … [b] y a store in th e corner. ” Samuels resp onded “[t]h em fol ks g ot me o n som e bull s**t, Bruh.” Detect ive Skinner tes tified t hat at the time o f this c all, invest igato rs were sho wing people t he surveilla nce vide o of the Delane y shoot ing and that t he term “dump ing” refers to “shoot [ing] a bunch of roun ds, or at leas t on e round. ” When ask ed wh ether Samue ls indica ted “tha t he was not dumping a t any po int,” Detecti ve Skin ner answer ed “ no.” The St ate also pla yed a phone ca ll bet ween Samue ls, his gir lfriend, and Sa muels’ s attor ney, in whic h the at torney read Sam uels the ch arges from hi s i ndi ctment an d Samuel s resp on ded “Now I g ot a n Ag gravat ed A ssau lt f rom Ju ne 20th? I n ever w as arreste d for … that.” When a sked whether Samuel s sta ted on that c all th at h e did n ot comm it agg ravated assaul t agai nst D elaney, De tecti ve Skin ner st ated “ no.” On cro ss - examinat ion, D etecti ve S kinner testi fied that th e calls were “ evid ence that [Samu els] d idn’t d eny” the D elan ey shoo ting at the time, and th at Sam uels’s lack of deni al wa s “nota ble.” When as ked wh eth er Samu els’s lack of denial was

23 “evid ence t hat … he’ s involve d in Mr. Kar eem Smalls ’ killing? ” Detecti ve Skin ner ans were d, “ It’s been submi tted as, yes.” When asked agai n whether o ne of the pho ne call s was evid ence that Samuel s commi tted the Smalls or Delaney shoot ing, Detecti ve Skin ner stat ed “I can’t testi fy t o wh at it’s ev id enc e to. T hey ask ed me wh at th e phon e call s we re.” (a) Sam uels arg ues that the tri al cou rt erre d in admitt ing Detecti ve P atric k Sk inn er’s com mentary on Samu els’s jail phon e calls becau se it w as cumul ative of Sam uels ’s own statem ents on the record ing s, it w as not r elevan t, and i t was lay witness opinion tes timony th at di d not sa tisfy OCGA § 24 -7- 701 (a). 5 Be cause Samuel s did not obj ect to Dete ctiv e Skinner’s tes timon y conc erni ng his fa ilure to deny the Delane y shoo ting during the ja il calls, we 5 OCGA § 24-7-701 (a) provides that: (a) If the witness is not testifyi ng as an ex pert, the wi tness’s testimony in the form of o pinions or inf erences shall be limited to those opinions or inf erences which ar e: (1) Rationally based on the percepti on of the witness; (2) Helpful to a clear under standin g of the witness’s testimony or the det ermination of a fact in issue; and (3) Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within t he scope of Code Section 24-7- 702.

24 review this claim for plain error only. Mc Cal op v. S tate, 31 6 G a. 3 63, 375 (2023). T o est abli sh pl ain e rror, Samuels must meet each pr ong of a four - pron g test: Firs t, the re mus t be an err or or defec t – some sort of deviati on f rom a l egal ru le – that has n ot bee n intent ionally r elinquishe d or a bandone d, i.e., affirm ativ ely wai ved, by the app ell ant. Sec ond, th e legal error m ust be cl ear or obvi ous, rath er th an su bj ec t to reason able d ispu te. Third, the err or must h av e aff ected the a ppellant 's subst antia l rights, which in the ordina ry case mean s he mu st demon stra te tha t it aff ect ed the outcom e of th e tri al court proc eedin gs. Fourth and fi nall y, if the abov e three pron gs ar e sati sfi ed, the ap pellate cour t has the d iscret ion to r emed y the er ror – discretio n which ough t to be ex erci sed on ly i f th e e rror seri ously aff ect s the fair ness, inte grity, or public rep utatio n of judicia l proce eding s. Was hington v. Stat e, 312 G a. 49 5, 498 (2021) (citat ion and punct uation o mitted). “As w e hav e n oted, affirm atively estab lishing all fo ur prong s is a diff icult stand ard to sat isfy.” Id. at 498 – 99 (citat ion and punct uation o mitted). “ This Court do es not have to analyz e all e lements o f the plain - error t est wh ere a n appel lant fails to establ ish one of them. ” Payne v. State, 314 Ga. 322, 3 25 (2022). Assuming wit hout deciding t hat the tri al cour t obvi ous ly erred

25 in allowing Detec tive Skinne r to test ify about the conte nt of Samue ls’s jail pho ne calls, Samuels ha s not sho wn plain e rror becaus e he cann ot satis fy the th ird pron g of the plai n erro r te st. Se e Grier v. State, 313 Ga. 23 6, 245 (2 022) (“Appe llant has not met hi s burden un der the pl ain er ror st anda rd to s how a re ason able proba bili ty th at t he ou tcom e wo ul d have been di fferent, as th e imprope rly admi tted [testimony ] w as merel y dupl icativ e of oth er properl y admi tte d evidenc e.”). As an i ni tial m atter, Sam uels mi schara cteri zes Detecti ve Skinner ’s tes timony, a rguing that Detect ive Skinner testif ied that Samuel s’s la ck o f deni al was “ evi dence … h e’s i nvol ved i n Mr. Karee m Smalls ’s killing” a nd “tha t he commit ted the sho oting … a t Ms. Jamie D elan ey.” Ou r revi ew of the t rial trans cript indi cates t hat when Detec tive S kin ner w as asked whet her Sam uel s’s lack of d enial was “evi den ce th at … he ’s in volv ed in Mr. Kar eem Sm all s’ kil li ng?” Skin ner an swere d, “I t’s b een su bmitted as, yes. ” When De t ective Skin ner was ask ed wheth er S amuel s’s l ack of d en ial was evi denc e “that h e committ ed th e sho oting of … D elan ey?” Sk inn er answ ered,

26 “I do n’t think t hat was me ntioned in this phone call … I ca n’t test ify to what i t’s ev ide nce to. They aske d me wh at the ph one call s were. ” Thu s, Detec tiv e Ski nn er did n ot, as Sam uels arg ues, “ repea ted ly tes tify that be cause Sa muels did not explic itly sta te, ‘I didn’ t do this,’ he was guilty.” Moreov er, thi s spec ifi c testi mony abo ut wh ether th e non - denials w er e evid ence of S amuel s’s gu il t was elici ted by Samuel s on cross - exami nati on, n ot by the St ate on di rect. In any e vent, Samue ls do es not argue on ap peal that the jail phone calls themselv es were inadmissible, only t hat t he trial co urt plainly e rred in allowing De tective Skinner t o testif y regard ing Samue ls’s lac k of de nial in the p hone c alls. Thus, the jur y heard Samuel s’s non - d enials o n the p hone calls for them sel ves. De tecti ve Skinner ’s tes timony re count ing the f act that Samuels d id not d eny shooti ng at Sm alls or Del aney was th eref ore cu mul ativ e of Samue ls’s sta tements in the ja il phone ca lls. S ee Dur den v. S tate, 318 Ga. 729, 73 3 – 34 (2024) (holding t hat any er ror in the admiss ion of a dete ctive ’ s lay opinio n testimo ny about the ap pellant d id not affec t the appel lant ’ s substantia l rights und er the pla in error

27 standa rd wh ere t he testimon y was cumulati ve of ot her unobj ected - to testim ony). Additio nally, the tr ial court instr ucted the j ury that the “ burd en of p roof neve r shi fts t o the D efendant to int roduce eviden ce o r to pr ove i nn ocence,” and juro rs are pres um ed to fol low a tria l court’s instruct ions. Cf. Wil son v. Sta te, 315 Ga. 72 8, 735 (2023) (jury was pr esu med to f ollow court ’s ins truc tion reg ardi ng proxim ate c ause when d eterminin g whet her def endant wa s guilty o f felo ny murder). Samuels’s claim of pl ain error t h erefore fail s. See Durden, 318 Ga. at 733 – 34. (b) Samuel s al so a rgu es th at his t rial coun sel provid ed cons titutio nally ineff ective ass istance by not objecting to De tective Skinner ’s te stimony. To prevail o n this claim, Sa muels mus t show that he w as p rej udi ced by hi s cou nsel ’s defi cien t perf orman ce. See Stric kland v. Was hingto n, 466 US 66 8, 687 (1984). As set f orth above, h owev er, S amuel s has n ot sho wn that D etecti ve Ski nn er’s testim ony a ffect ed th e out come of th e trial. Acc ordingly, even if tri al couns el’s fai lure to obj ect was defi cient perf orman ce, Samue ls ha s not s hown that he was prejudic ed as a result. Thus, this claim f ails

28 for th e sam e reas on h is cl aim o f pl ain error f ail s. See Grif fin v. State, 311 Ga. 579, 584 (2 021) (“ [T] he tes t for p rejudi ce i n the ineff ectiv e assist ance anal ysis is equ ival ent t o the tes t for har m in plai n error review.” (ci tation om itted)). 5. Samuel s arg u es th at h e was c um ulati vely harmed by th e trial cou rt’s er ror s. This claim f ails. “Whe n this Court has ide ntifie d or presume d more t han one error, althou gh the ef fect of ea ch on its own m igh t have be en harmle ss,” we will “co nsider collectiv ely, r ather t han individ ually, the p rejudi cial effec t, if any, of [the ] trial court er rors. ” Nundra v. State, 316 G a. 1, 16 (2 023) (ci tatio n an d pun ctu ation omi tted). Even cons idering the assumed er ror in per mitting witne ss testim ony regardi ng S amu els’s d rug acti vity and D etectiv e Ski nner ’s tes timony regardi ng S amuel s’s statement s in jail p hone c alls, we conc lude that the cumu lati ve eff ect o f th ese e rrors does not warran t a new t rial. See All en v. Stat e, 310 Ga. 4 11, 4 17 (20 20) (h olding th at the cum ulat ive e ffect o f the t rial court ’ s assumed errors did not warran t a n ew tr ial give n the “s trong evid ence” agains t defe ndant).

29 As not ed a bove, th e Stat e did not emp hasi ze Sam uels ’s al leged drug act ivity in op ening st atement s or closing a rgume nts, a nd Dete ctive Skin ner’s t esti mon y was cu mulativ e of ot her un objec ted - to tes timony. In light of the other substa ntial e vidence of Samuel s’s guilt heard by th e jury i n th is ca se, w e con clude th at Samuels has not s hown that “t he multiple er rors so inf ected the j ury ’ s deliber ation that they denied ” him “ a fund ament ally fa ir tria l.” Green e v. State, 3 16 Ga. 584, 608 (2023) (quotati on m ark s omit ted). See als o Huff v. State, 315 Ga. 558, 56 8 (20 23) (hold ing that th e appell ant ’s cumulative - error claim fai led becaus e the appell ant d id n ot d emonstrat e th at “th e p rejud ici al e ffect of the assumed trial court errors... denied him a fundam entally fair trial, given t he stro ng evide nce against him”). Accordingly, Samuels’s cumulat ive - error conten ti on fails. Judgment a ffir med. All the Justices concur.