Woods v. State - Appeal of Malice Murder Conviction

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: Ma rch 3, 2026 S2 5A10 88. WOODS v. THE STATE. E L LINGTON, Justic e. Male i k Wo ods ap peals his convi cti ons fo r mali ce mu rder an d posses sion of a firearm duri ng the c ommi ssion of a f elony in conne ction wit h the s hooting de ath of Francis co Dwayne Zapata. 1 Woods asserts as hi s first claim of e rror on ap peal t hat the t rial cour t 1 Zapat a was s hot and killed on No vember 5, 2 018, and on January 15, 2019, a DeKalb C ounty grand jury indicted W oods in connection with the shooting on charges of malice murder (C ount 1); felony murder based on ar med robbery (Count 2); felony murd er based on aggrav ated assault (Count 3); armed robbery (Count 4); aggravated assault (Cou nt 5); and pos session of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 6). Follo wing a jury tri al in November 2019, the jury acquitt ed Woo ds on Counts 2 and 4, bu t found him guilty on the remaining counts. The trial court sen tenced Woods to life i n prison with the poss ibility of parol e on Count 1 and five years to serve on Count 6, to run con secutiv ely to Co unt 1. The remaining counts w ere either vaca ted or merged. Woods filed a timely motion for new trial, whi ch was twice amended by new counsel, on Janu ary 4, 2021, an d November 11, 20 24. The trial court denied the motion on December 23, 2024, and W ood s filed a timel y notice of appeal. The case was docketed to the August 202 5 term of this Court and submitted for a deci sion on the brie fs. 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 Cour t’s reco nsiderat ion, and editorial revisions by th e Reporter of Decisions. The versi on of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geo rgia Repo rts, desi gnated as the “Final Copy, ” will r eplace an y 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 abused i ts di scret ion in admit ting, over obj ecti on, ev iden ce of othe r acts p ursuant to OCGA § 24 -4- 404(b). Wood s als o argue s that the trial c ourt comm i tted pl ain error wh en it “c oerc ed th e dea dlock ed juro rs into rea ching a unanimo us ver dict. ” And Woods co ntend s that the combi ned effe ct of thes e two er rors re quires that his convi cti ons and sen ten ces be revers ed. Se e ing n o merit to th ese a rgum ents, w e affirm. Zapat a 2 and Woo ds w ere fri ends, and on N ovemb er 5, 2018, the two w ere s een togeth er sev eral times a t thei r m utual frien d Isaac Summage’s h ouse in Gwin nett County. Summag e testi fied that W oods was unem ployed at th e time an d had been sle epin g on Summ age’s c ouch the prev ious thre e ni ghts. Z apat a ’s girl frien d saw them th ere at aro und 11: 30 a.m. when they w ere sitting in Zapat a ’s burgund y Kia in Summa ge’s dr iveway. T he gir lfriend no ticed tha t Wood s, who was sit ting in the front p asseng er s eat, was w eari ng 2 Although the tria l transcript identifies the victim in t his case as “Francisco Simpata, ” the indictment, th e trial court’s order on the motion for new trial, and oth er record documents ident ify the victim as “Franci sco Zapata,” and we ref er to him accord ingly.

3 black pants an d a y ellow hood ie. While the tw o were at S ummage ’s hous e that m orni ng, Sum mage sa w Zapat a counting $1,50 0 in cas h in Woo ds’s pres en ce. Zapat a did n ot have a ban k ac coun t and w as know n for c arry in g cash in his walle t. Za pa t a and Woods lef t Summ age’s house a roun d n oon in Zapat a ’s Kia an d retu rned ar ound 4:00 or 5:0 0 p.m. They stay ed f or a round on e - half hour and left aga in but return ed “for a brie f momen t” a fter S ummag e cal led Zap ata a nd arrang ed “t o get some we ed.” 3 Zapata an d Woods t hen lef t Summ age’s hou se t ogeth er i n Zap at a ’s Kia about 7: 00 p.m. Sometim e b etwee n 7:3 0 an d 7:3 5 p. m. th at ev eni ng, as Shaki ta White turne d into the DeKalb Cou nty apar tment co mpl ex wh ere s he lived, she notic ed a burgund y Kia bac ked into a parking spac e, with two pe ople insid e. White te stifie d that t he pers on i n th e dri ver’s se at looked l ike a w hi te femal e, and the eviden ce a t trial showed that Zapat a ha d lighte r - co lored skin and “long ha ir, a lit tle bit be low his shoulde r,” whic h he alway s “wore bac k in like a messy b un.” White 3 The evidence showed that in late 2 018, Zapat a, who w as employed full - time, was earning e xtra money by selling marijuana.

4 sa id the pers on i n th e passen ge r seat w as we arin g a y ellow hood ie. That s ame ev eni ng, Steven H ollan d, anot her apartm ent complex r esident, was sit ting in his c ar in the complex par king lot, liste ning to mus ic, whe n he “hea rd a pop ” that “ so unded like a gunshot. ” Holla nd went inside his apart ment for a t ime and t he n return ed to hi s car an d drove towa rd the comp lex ’s exit. As Holland was dri vin g toward the ex it, h e s aw a car back ed in to a park in g space w ith t he dr iv er’s doo r open an d what ap pea red to be a bag of clot hes on the ground. However, w hen he drove by the ca r, Holland looked clos er an d saw th at t here w as a body besi de th e car, with the legs s till in the vehic le and the re st of the body on the ground. Holland then c alled 911, parked, and w aited for p olice to a rrive. The eviden ce show ed th at Holl and’s 91 1 call was plac ed at 7:58 p. m. on Novemb er 5, 20 18, w hich Holl an d said was “ [p] r obabl y abou t 1 5 minutes ” after he heard the “ po p. ” Sheila Nesbit, anoth er resi dent of the c ompl ex, testified tha t she was ins ide h er apartm ent w hen s he heard a “ l oud nois e ” ou tsi de, follow ed ab out 30 secon ds lat er by th e same nois e ag ain. Nesbit wen t

5 outsi de on her d eck t o see w here the noi se was c omi ng from, a nd a bo ut ten minutes later, she saw po lice lights coming into the complex. She the n obs erved a polic e off icer go to a car t hat was backed i nto a pa rkin g spac e. Ne sbi t sa id that about ten minute s befor e sh e hea rd th e l oud n ois e, sh e hap pen ed t o look ou t her win dow an d noticed that car in th e parkin g lot. It st ood out to her becaus e it w as n ot a car th at u sual ly parked there. When th e firs t po lice offi ce r arri ved on the sc ene, at 8:0 4 p.m., Holland was wa iting in his vehic le a nd direc ted the officer to a burgund y Kia. The of ficer app roach ed th e veh icle an d obse rved a per son lying on the ground, with one leg still in the vehicle t hrough the op en d rive r’s side d oor. T he off icer firs t rep orted that the victi m was f emale, but u pon clos er in sp ection he reali zed the vi cti m wa s male. The of fice r det ermin ed th at the m an h ad be en sh ot, bu t th e body was s ti ll warm, and th e off icer th ough t he detect ed a li ght puls e. He b egan pe rformi ng ch est c ompr ession s u nti l emerg ency medical hel p ar riv ed and move d th e victi m. When th e lea d det ective arriv ed som etim e lat er, em ergen cy m edical pers onn el were on th e

6 scene and had de termin ed th at th e man, l ater i den tifi ed as Za p at a, was de ad. Inves tigato rs lat er det ermi ned t hat the a part men t comple x was about a 26 - minute t o one - hour d riv e fr om Su mmag e’s h ouse, dep ending o n traff ic. A subsequ en t analys is of cell phone reco rds from Wood s’s pho ne showe d t ha t on the night of the shoo ting it was u tiliz ing a cell tow er locat ed within approxim ately two m ile s of the apartmen t c omp lex betw een 7:38 a nd 7:41 p.m. Off icers a lso retriev ed a phot o from W ood s ’s cell phon e show ing Woods in a yell ow hood ie. A vide o retriev ed from S ummage ’s cell phone also showed Woods w eari ng a yell ow hood ie. Summ age tes tifi ed t hat Woods c alled h im on F aceti me arou nd 1:00 a.m. th e mo rnin g afte r the s hooti ng, an d the first w ords out o f Woods’s mouth wer e “I had to do i t to h im.” Su mmag e testifi ed th at he un derst ood that Wood s was refer ring to Za pata. And w he n Summage, also r eferrin g to Z apat a, asked, “bro di ed, bro is de ad?” Woods becam e “li ke f rantic ” and sai d, “ bro, I swe ar to God, I didn’t kill him.” The n Wood s told Summage he would call him b ack and

7 discon nect ed th e call, but Woo ds n ever c all ed Summage back or return ed to Sum mage’s hou se. An au topsy rev eal ed tha t Zapat a die d of a g unshot wo und to the bac k consistent with a shot fir ed from a hand gun. F rom a s earch of Zapat a ’s Ki a, i nvesti gato rs det erm ined t hat th e c ar was likely the main crime sc ene. Zapat a ’s cell p hone was inside t he car, a nd off icers found a sing le shel l casi ng on the dri ver’s s ide fl oorboa rd. Ba sed on the location of th e cas ing, in vestig ators beli eved t hat i t c ame f rom a semi - aut omatic ha ndgun f ired from inside the c ar. I nvesti gators also di scov ered a wal let i n the ca r, bu t no cas h was found in the c ar o r on Z apat a’s p ers on. Zapat a’ s K i a was imp ounded for f urthe r invest igatio n. W hen the p olic e la ter r eleas ed th e car to Zapat a ’s stepfath er, he turn ed on the c ar’s engi ne and se arched the das hboard display f or the la st phone connec ted to t he car. The s creen read: “Retro se arch ing, ” and the evi dence showed that Zap at a a nd others ref erred to Woods by the ni cknam e “Ret ro.” Vontari a C arlton testifi ed at t rial abo ut an earlier incide nt involvi ng Woo ds (herei nafte r ref erred to as “ the M ay 21 in cident ”).

8 Carlton sai d th at on May 21, 2018, sh e vi sited Lak ayl ah W alker at Walker ’s h ouse. Walker and Wo ods had a chi ld tog eth er, and Wood s was a t the h ous e wh en Ca rlton arri ved. As Carl ton en ter ed th e hous e, Wood s an d Walk er we re arguing. When Woo ds start ed “to go toward s ” Walk er, Walker told W oods to le ave and that th e pol ice had been c all ed. Walk er’s baby w as i n a nother room c ryin g, and C arl ton picked up th e baby to try to cal m he r. At th at poi nt, C arl ton al so tol d Woods t o le ave, and he began curs ing at Car lton. Wo ods th en pulled out a gun and p ointe d it a t Carlto n while she was ho lding the bab y. Carlton said that Woods ev entu all y put th e gu n away and st arted physic ally fightin g with Wa lker, pulling he r hair, choking her, and hitti ng her befo re th e pol ice arriv ed. 1. Woods argu es that eviden ce fro m the May 21 incident was imprope rly admit ted for pu rpos es o f know ledge and i n tent pur suant to OCGA § 24 - 4- 404(b) (“Rule 40 4(b)”) and that h e was harm ed by the admi ssi on of the i mpro per evi den ce. 4 4 Woods’s enumera tion of error on this issue include s language suggesting that he also is asserting a claim of ineff ective assistan ce of trial

9 “We r eview a t rial c ourt ’ s evide ntiary r ulings under an abuse of discre tion standard of rev iew. ” Williams v. State, 302 Ga. 474, 478 (2017) (quot ation marks omitt ed). “A nd even wh ere an abu se of discr etion is sh own, ther e are no gr oun ds for reve rsa l if th e err or di d not af fect a ‘ subst antia l right, ’ and thus har m, the defend ant.” Ventur in o v. Stat e, 3 06 Ga. 391, 393 (201 9); OCGA § 24 -1- 103(a) (“Er ror shall no t be pre dicate d upon a r uling which ad mits o r exclud es e vidence unle ss a s ubstant ial right of the pa rt y is affected [.]”). W here, as in this c ase, the al leg ed er ror is non - counsel based on counsel’s f ail ure to object to the prosecution ’ s c losing argument concernin g this evide nce. I n addition, Wood s asser ts in his brief that the issue of ineff ective assi stance of cou nsel was pr eserved for appeal because it was rais ed at the first a vailable op portunity. How ever, Woods does not otherwise address the issue of ineffective assistance of coun sel in his appellate briefing. He asserts no specif ic argument regard ing that iss ue, nor d oes he cite any legal authority addressing the issue’s merits. We co nclude, therefore, th at to the extent that W oods attempts to assert a claim of ineffec tive assistance of counsel on appeal, he has failed to carry his burden to estab lish such a claim. See Clark v. State, 321 Ga. 732, 737 (202 5) (“ To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, an appellant bears the bu rden of showing both t hat trial counsel ’ s performance was p rofessionally d eficient and that h e was prejudic ed as a result of that deficient per formance.” (citing Strickl and v. Washi ngton, 46 6 U.S. 668, 695 (1984)); Clark v. State, 30 7 Ga. 537, 543 – 44 (2019) (rejecting an ineffective-assistanc e-of- counsel cla im where the a ppellant argued that comments were inadmissibl e but made “no argument, much less a sufficient showing, that th e trial cou rt erred in c oncluding that trial counsel’s deci sion not to object was [no t] objectively u nreasonable”).

10 cons titutio nal, “ we exam ine w het her it is hi ghly probabl e that th e error d id not c ontri bute to the v erdi ct by rev iewi ng th e re cord de novo an d weig hi ng th e eviden ce as w e woul d ex pect r eason able jurors to hav e d one.” Pounds v. State, 320 Ga. 288, 294 (20 24) (clean ed up). Rul e 404(b) prov ides th at “[e]vid en ce of oth er cri mes, w ron gs, or acts sh all not be admis sible to prov e the ch aract er of a pers on in order to show act ion in con formi ty th erewi th.” OCG A § 24 -4- 40 4(b). Such ev iden ce, how ever, may be admi ssibl e for oth er pu rp oses, su ch as “pr oof o f m otive, oppor tun ity, inten t, p rep aration, pl an, know ledge, i dent ity, or abs ence of mist ake o r acci dent,” if th e eviden ce i s rel eva nt fo r pr ovin g tha t oth er pu rpos e. Id. W h ere a tria l court errs in admit ting Rule 404(b) evidence, we generally ha ve found suc h errors harml ess “ whe re th e prop erly admi tted evi den ce was so s tron g th at the prej udi cial effec t of th e o ther - ac ts evi dence had no signific ant influenc e o n the guilty ver dicts. ” Dick erson v. State, __ _ Ga. ___ (20 26), S25A1365, slip op. at 11 - 12 (Ga. Ja n. 21, 2026) (2026 WL 1511 34) (quotati on mark s om itted). See also

11 Nundra v. State, 316 Ga. 1, 6 (2023). Addit ionally, this Court previou sl y has s tated tha t j ur y instr uctio ns limiting the use of 404(b) ev id ence can r educe th e effec t that such evidenc e might ha ve on a jur y’s decisio n, wher e t he evide nce of guilt is strong. See, e.g., Priester v. S ta te, 316 Ga. 133, 138 – 39 (2023) (con cludi ng that an y er ror in the adm issi on o f eviden ce tha t the appell ant comm itt ed an arm ed ro bbery an d sh ot at a car duri ng a d rug de al on th e day befo re he commi tted the charge d cri mes was ha rml ess, gi ven that th e t rial c ourt i nst ruct ed the jur y that it co uld not infer prop ensity from that evid ence a nd that the other e vidence of his guilt wa s stro ng); Nundra, 316 Ga. at 8 (dete rmin in g that the tri al court’s “adm oniti on t hat th e jury may not in fer from [th e 404(b)] evi denc e th at the a ccus ed is of a cha racter that w oul d comm it su ch c rimes reduc e[d] the l ikel ih ood th at th e eviden ce of [the defen dant’ s] pas t crim es in flu enced t he v erdi ct” (quot ation m ark s omi tted)); Will iams v. State, 313 Ga. 443, 450 (2022) (“Be cause w e ordi naril y p resu me that jur ors foll ow [the trial court ’s inst ructions], any unf air p rejudic e fro m the ad mission o f the

12 [Rul e 404(b)] ev iden ce w as redu ced.” (qu otati on ma rk s omitt ed)). Here, th e Sta te fi led a pr e - tri al re quest to in trodu ce ev idenc e of the M ay 21 in ci dent pu rsuan t t o Rule 404(b). A t a later hearing on the iss ue, the State pr offer ed th e evi dence f or the pu rpos e of showing i ntent and knowle dge. The p rosecut or expla ined t hat the State’ s the ory of th e case w as th at Woods shot Zapa ta while r obbing him at g unpoint, noting t hat W oods had no job, he knew Zapat a was carryi ng cas h af ter s eein g Zap ata wi th $1, 500 t hat day, and n o money was foun d at the cri me scen e. T he prosecut or arg ued th at t he Sta te need ed t he evi denc e of th e May 21 i n ciden t becaus e invest igato rs had not found the gun use d in the s hoot ing and the Sta te wanted to show tha t just mont hs ear lier, Woods had po inted a gun at so meone else he knew intima tely. The next d ay, the tri al court ente red an o rder admit ting the e vidence fo r the purposes of knowle dge a nd intent. B efore C arlton te stifi ed at tri al, the tri al court g ave a l imi tin g instr uctio n on the use of t he e vidence regardin g t he May 21 incid ent and r epeat ed th at in struct ion i n it s gen eral charg e to the ju ry. Tho se

13 ins truction s dire cted the ju rors to con sider th e Rule 404(b) e vide nce “ only ins ofar as i t may rel ate ” to th e issues of knowledge and inte nt that th e State m us t prove i n th e cri mes ch arge d in the case o n trial and th at t hey “m ay n ot i nfer f rom su ch evi denc e th at the def endant is of a char acter th at wou ld com mit s uch c rim es.” Even a ssuming, w ithout decid ing, that the trial cou rt abus ed its dis cret ion in adm itting t he eviden ce of t he May 21 in ciden t, we conc lude that a ny such error was h arml ess. The Stat e pr esen ted strong circ umstantial eviden ce to s uppor t Woods’s conv icti ons. The eviden ce show ed that W oods an d Zapat a spent mu ch of Nov embe r 5, 2018, togethe r and that they left Sum mage’ s house together in Zapat a’s burgu ndy Kia aroun d 7:00 p.m. Whit e sa w t w o people matc hing Zapata’s an d W oods ’s des criptio ns sitting in Za pa ta’s bur gund y Kia in the co mplex par king lot at around 7:30 to 7:35 p.m. T he person whom White de scribe d as a whit e female fit Zapata ’s descri ption, a nd the clot hing worn by t he person in the pas seng er seat m atch ed that worn by Wood s earl ier that day. The dashbo ard displ ay in Zapata ’s car indicate d that Wo ods’s cell phon e appea red

14 to have b een th e las t phon e conn ected t o the c ar’s commu ni cation system, a nd Woods’s cel l phone data s how ed tha t Woods’s ce ll phone was in the a rea of the compl ex b etween 7:38 and 7:41 p.m. W itne s s tes timony p laced t he sound of a gunshot just minute s later, a s Holl and sai d he h eard th e sho t approx imat ely 15 m inu tes bef ore h e made the 911 call a t 7:58 p.m., whic h would p lace the s hot at around 7:43 p.m. Addit ionally, e vidence col lec ted at the scene suppo rt ed that the shot that kil led Z apa ta was fir ed f rom ins ide th e Ki a, and Zap ata’s body w as found shot in t he back and hanging out of the dr iver’s side doo r. A lthough Za pata had $1, 500 e arlier in the day a nd his walle t was f ound i n th e car, n o c ash wa s di scover ed at th e crime sc ene. Hours after the shoot ing, Woods placed a vid eo cal l to Summage in which Woods said that he “had to do it t o him.” Sum mage u nderst ood “him ” to ref er t o Zapa ta, and Wo ods ap peare d “ frant ic ” whe n Summage asked if Za pata w ere de ad. Moreov er, the State did not mention t he May 21 incide nt in openin g stat eme nt and made, at most, o nly two brie f ref erence s to

15 the evid ence in clo sing, and w e hav e s tated th at under suc h circum stan ces, the prejud icial e ffect of Rule 4 04(b) evi dence may be minimize d. See Redding v. State, 3 20 Ga. 10 7, 118 (2024). And the trial c ourt twi ce in struct ed th e jur y th at th e evi dence of the M ay 2 1 incide nt was being int rod uced for the limited purpo ses of knowle dge and int ent, a nd in each s et of ins truct ions, the court specif ically dire cte d t he jur ors t hat the y c ould not use the e vidence to determ ine that W oods ha d th e cha racter t o com mit th e acts charg ed agai nst him. Accor dingly, b ecaus e the S tate p resen ted stron g, properl y admitte d evi den ce of W oods ’ s g ui lt an d the tri al cou rt pr ovi ded limiting instruc tions on the us e of t he R ule 40 4(b) ev id ence, we conc lude tha t it is highly pro bable tha t any error in ad mitting t he e vide nce of th e May 21 i nci dent did n ot cont ribu te to the ju ry ’ s guilty verdic ts. See Dick erso n, slip o p. at 1 3 – 14. See al so Nundra, 316 Ga. at 8. Woods ’s cl aim of er ror on thi s grou nd f ails. 2. Woods als o con tend s t hat t he tria l court committ ed p lain error “ when it coerc ed the d ead locked juro rs i nto r each ing a

16 unanimous verd ict. ” Because W oods di d not raise a t im ely objec t ion to the t rial court’s instruc tions t hat he now asse r ts w ere “ coerc ive, ” we rev iew his cla im only fo r plain e rror. See Hill v. St ate, 310 G a. 180, 194 n.8 (2020); OCGA § 17 -8- 58(b). To prevail o n plain - error revi ew, an app ellant must show tha t the trial cour t’s allege d instruct ional er ror “was n ot af firm ati vely waiv ed; w as cl ear and obvi ous, rath er t han subjec t to rea son able dispu te; li kely af fect ed the ou tcom e of the tri al; and se rious ly af fecte d the fai rness, i nteg rity, o r pu bli c reput ation of judi cial p roceed ing s. ” C lark v. St at e, 315 Ga. 423, 440 (2 023) (qu ota t ion mark s omitted). “If one prong of th e plai n er ror t est is n ot satisfi ed, w e n eed not addres s the oth er pr ongs of th e tes t.” Baker v. State, 319 Ga. 456, 462 (2 024). Mor eover, “ [s] atisf ying this h igh sta ndard is diff icult, as it should be. ” Id. (qu ota tion mark s omitted). The jur y in this c ase began del iberat ing on T hu rsday, Nove mber 7, 2 019, a t 1:57 p.m. Somet ime later that after noon, the jury s ent a note aski ng to s ee tw o pi eces o f evi den ce. Th e jury was brough t back in to the cour troom where the trial court respond ed to

17 the jury’s request, and t he jur ors resu med the ir deli berati ons at 4:29 p.m. L ater, when the t rial j udge s ent the d eputy t o ask the ju r ors when the y wanted to break for the e vening, t he jury replie d with a note tha t read, “ We’re no t abl e to com e to a un ani mous d ecisi on.” The tri al c ourt broug ht the ju ry ba ck in to th e c ourt room, an d, with out di rectl y resp ond ing to th e note, rel eased th e juro rs f or t he day at arou nd 6: 02 p.m. Woods ’s couns el rai sed no obje ction to thi s procedu re. Jury del ibe ratio ns res umed th e n ext morn ing, Fri day Novemb er 8, at 8:57 a.m., an d so meti me bef ore n oon, the ju ry s ent out a nother note asking, “Wha t hap pens if a unanim ous de cisio n cannot be re ach ed?” T he tri al ju dg e state d tha t it was to o ea rly fo r an A llen 5 charge. Cou nsel for both si des concu rre d an d agreed wi th the trial cou rt’s sug gesti on to s end the ju ry a m essag e to “ke ep delib erat ing.” Accordin gl y, Wood s’s c oun sel agreed with this procedu re. Later that afte rnoon, th e jury sen t th e trial judge anot her 5 Allen v. U nited Stat es, 164 US 492 (1896).

18 note that read, “We a re at an imp asse, an d it i s bei ng s tated th at no amount of d elibera tion will cha nge the opinions.” The tria l ju dge t old couns el that he in t en ded t o bring the jur ors i nto th e court room to tell t hem that t hey would be delib erat ing until 5: 00 p.m., and if no verdic t was r eac hed, th ey wou ld retu rn Tuesd ay morn ing, after a long holi day w eeken d, to r esum e del iberati ons. At this point, Woods’ s counsel move d for a mistria l “since this is the third t ime tha t [the ju rors] have said some thing of this nature. ” Th e tri al court s umm arily denied the m oti on but s tat ed that h e w ould giv e the j ury an Allen charge on Tu esday if it did not reach a v erdi ct. The tri al court call ed the j ur ors back into th e courtr oom and t old them: So, I kn ow y ou've been deli berati ng for qui te a w hil e now. But we ’ re going t o — I’m just going to give you the schedu le. We’ re g oing to p robabl y g o t oday u nti l about five, and then we will b e coming bac k on Tuesday — Tuesda y mornin g at nine if yo u do not reac h a dec ision today by fi ve. O k ay? So, I ’m jus t gi vin g you the sch ed ule. And th en w e’ll be back on ou r no rm al sch edu le fo r th e res t of next we ek, with lun ch at twel ve an d goi ng to abou t fi ve. Okay? A ll righ t. You ’re ex cus ed. Wood s’s counse l did not obj ect to these ins tructio ns, a nd the j ury

19 then re sumed its de liberat ions around 3:16 p.m. w ith the p lan to cease d eli berati on s aroun d 5:00 p.m. No v erdi ct w as reach ed on Frida y. W hen the t rial res umed on Tuesd ay, Novem be r 12, th e jury contin ued i ts deli berati ons and re ached a verdi ct l ater th at day, in which the jurors f ound Wood s guilty of malice mur der, felony murder based on ag gravat ed ass ault, aggr avate d assau lt, an d posses sion of a firearm duri ng t he comm issi on o f a fel ony bu t acquitt ed hi m of the cha rges of felon y murd er bas ed on armed robbery and a rmed robbe ry. The tria l court co nducte d a poll o f the jury, ask ing eac h juror, “Is this your ver dict?” a nd “Is this s till your verdic t?” The juror s individ ua lly resp onded in the affi rmati ve to both ques tions. In deny ing Woods’s mot ion for new tr ial o n this gro und, t he trial c ourt d eter min ed that t he j ury del iber at ed approxi matel y 16 hours over th ree busi ness day s, which the cou r t found wa s “ not remark able ” in a murder cas e based on circu mstan ti al eviden ce. It also conclu ded th at th e ju ry wa s not impe rmis sibl y coer ced.

20 W oods asserts, how ever, that the trial court err ed i n di recti ng the ju rors to k eep deli ber atin g in spi te of thei r not es indicat ing that they ha d not reached a unanimous decisio n and asking wha t would happ en if the y did not do s o. He al so ass erts that th e tri al cou rt’s announc ement o f the schedul e fo r deli bera tions for th e foll owi ng week of tr ial signa led t o the jur or s that a hung jur y was no t accep table an d that they w ere requir ed to de liberat e indefinit ely until the y reache d a unan im ous ve rdict. T he dete rmin atio n of wh ether a j ury is h opelessl y d eadlo cked is a sensi tiv e one best made by th e trial court th at has obs erv ed th e trial an d the j ury, Bannister v. State, 306 Ga. 289, 296 (2019) (quot ation m arks omi tted), a nd a t rial c ourt ’ s determina tion in t hat regard i s su bjec t to revers al on ly f or an abus e of di scr etion. Smith v. State, 30 2 Ga. 717, 718 (2017) (qu otati on ma rks om it ted). M oreov er, the d etermina tion of “[w]hether a v erdic t was r each ed as the res ult of coe rcion dep ends upo n the tota lity of t he circumst ance s.” Id. (quot ation m ark s omi tted). And this Co urt ha s consid er ed t he follo wing in det ermini ng whethe r the t rial co urt’s dec ision to require

21 furthe r del iber ati ons amou nte d to coer cion: the le ngth of tr ial, the le ngth of delib erat ions before the jury ind icat es that it is dea dlocked, the la nguage of the jury ’ s notes, the prog ress of the j ury, t he lan guag e of th e Allen charg e an d oth er in struc tion s reg ardin g deliber ation s, t he l ength of addi tio nal deli beration s aft er the a lleged coercio n, whet her the jur y found the defe ndant not guilty of any cha rges, a nd the polling of the jur y. Smith, 302 Ga. at 721. In addi tion, t rial j udges are v est ed w ith b road d is cretion w ith respec t to admi nist rative or t rial man agement in struc tion s, and such discr etion “ will not be co ntrolle d by t his co urt unless it is manife stly ab used.” Edwards - Tuggle v. State, 320 G a. 558, 562 – 6 3 (202 4) (quotati on m arks omitt ed). “ The j udge ’ s disc retio n in contr olling the conduct of a trial ne cessar ily includ es t he power to determi ne th e l eng th of ti me th e ju ry wi ll be allow ed t o del ibe rate on a gi ven day. ” Id. See als o OC GA § 15 -1- 3 (4) (“E very c ourt has power ... [t] o con trol, in t he furth er ance of ju sti ce, th e conduc t of its offic ers an d all oth er per sons con necte d wit h a ju dici al pr oceedi ng befor e it, in ev ery m atter apper tai nin g theret o[.] ”).

22 T he tri al in t his ca se lasted fo r over th ree days, and the jury deliber ated under fou r hours be fore s en ding the first messag e indica ting tha t it wa s unable t o reach a u nani mous decisi on. The next day, d elibera tions cont inued for fe wer than six hours before th e jury se nt its la st note ind icating t hat it was at an impa sse. But at no point did t he not es ind icate that t he jury was “hope lessly deadlocked.” See Ba nniste r, 306 Ga. at 296. At most, the f inal note indi cated th at th e jury had re ach ed an “ impass e,” a nd som e person or pers ons st ate d that furth er deli berati on “w ou ld not chang e opinio ns.” But even if the jur ors had ind icate d that they wer e “hopel essl y deadl ocke d,” see id., a trial c ourt is not boun d by suc h a pronoun cem ent. “ On the con trary, th e tri al cour t, in the ex erci se of a sound d iscretion, [is] requi red to m ake its own determ inati on as to wheth er fur ther deliber ation s we re in order. ” Sear s v. State, 27 0 Ga. 834, 83 8 (19 99). A fter the thi rd note, th e trial court in struc ted th e jury as to wh at th e sche dul e for deli beration s w oul d be for the remain der o f the day and i nto the follow in g week i f necess ary. The trial c ourt n ever gave an Alle n charge. And wh en th e jury re ach ed

23 its ve rdict, it found Woo ds not guilty on two count s. E ach juror confirm ed th e verdict when polled by the trial cour t. Consi derin g the t otali ty o f the circu mstan ces, th e tr ial court’s ins truction s to t he ju rors aft er re ceivi ng th eir n otes we re not imperm issi bly co erci ve, and, th eref ore, it did not abuse its d iscret ion in giving thos e instr uctio ns. See Porras v. S tate, 295 Ga. 412, 4 20 (201 4) (determining tha t the tri al cou rt ’ s instructions we re not “coer cive si mpl y becau se th ey com pell ed th e jury t o conti nu e deliber atin g af ter i t r eport ed a deadl ock”). And the tri al cour t’s instr uctio ns setting o ut the s chedule for fut ure de liberat ions canno t be un ders tood as fo rcing th e jury to reach a unan imou s ve rdict as Woods contends. “ Rath er, th e court ’ s statem ents con stitut ed adminis tra tive guidanc e for the jury concer ning how long t hey would like ly be delib erating that evening and in the c oming da ys, guidanc e tha t clear ly fell wit hin the wide d iscre tion aff orded tr ial judge s in mana ging their courtr ooms. ” Edwards - Tuggle, 3 20 Ga. at 563. T heref ore, Woods fail ed t o est abli sh t hat the tria l court erred,

24 much les s tha t it clearly an d obv ious ly err ed, in r espond ing to t he jury’s not es, an d b ecause W oo ds f ailed to e stablis h at least one of th e elemen ts of pl ain er ror, hi s clai m f ails. See Sell ers v. Sta te, __ _ Ga. ___ (202 6), S25A1044, slip op. at 12 (Ga. Jan. 5, 2 026) (2026 WL 20439) (holding cla im of plain error in tria l court’ s jury instruc tion fails b ecaus e Ap pell ant f ailed t o show clea r an d obvi ous e rro r in giving a jury charge). 3. Woods f urthe r asse rts tha t if we ide ntify error based on the argum ents above, but fi nd th at any such error w as ha rmles s, w e should review the cumu lati ve effe ct of both errors. “To est ablish c umulative error [,] [an a ppellant ] must sho w that (1) at l east tw o e rrors were c ommi tted i n th e cours e of th e trial; an d co nsidere d togethe r along with the e ntire recor d, the m ultiple errors so in fect ed th e jury ’ s d eli berati on th at th ey den ied [the app ellant ] a fundame ntally f air tr ial.” Sta te v. Lane, 308 G a. 10, 21 (202 0) (quotatio n m arks omi tte d). Here, we as sumed error on Wood s’s argument that the tr ial court abu sed i ts di scr etion in admitti ng eviden ce of th e May 21 i nci dent bu t conc lude d tha t s uc h

25 error wa s har mless. And we ide ntified no err or i n t he t rial c ourt ’s instr uctio ns to the jur y during their deliber ations. Acco rdingly, becaus e Woo ds failed to show more than one e rror at trial, t his Court has no errors to agg regat e for purpos es o f a cumulative e rror analys is. Woods’s argument on this gro und fa ils. See Flo od v. Sta te, 311 Ga. 800, 808 – 09 (202 1). Judgment a ffi rmed. Al l the Just ices conc ur.