Williams v. Kelly
Annotate this CaseFollowing a May 1995 jury trial, Defendant Eric Kelley was convicted of two counts of felony murder (with the underlying felony of aggravated assault) in connection with the shooting deaths of two people at a pawn shop. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions on appeal. In 2006, Defendant filed a habeas corpus petition, amended in 2008 and 2009. Following an October 2009 hearing, in 2011 the habeas court granted Defendant relief on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Specifically, the habeas court found that appellate counsel was ineffective for having failed to argue on direct appeal that the trial court erred in charging the jury on both subsections (a) (1) and (a) (2) of OCGA section 16-5-21 when the indictment stated only that Defendant had committed aggravated assault in connection with felony murder by shooting the victims with a pistol. The Warden of Scott State Prison appealed that ruling. The habeas court relied on "Chapman v. Georgia" (548 SE2d 278 (2001)) in arriving at its conclusion. However, as the Supreme Court "made clear" in "Sharpe v. Georgia" (S12A0677 (2012)), "[w]here the indictment charges a defendant committed an offense by one method, it is reversible error for the court to instruct the jury that the offense could be committed by other statutory methods with no limiting instruction. The defect is cured, however, where … the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the State to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt." The Court found that the trial court specifically provided jurors with the indictment and instructed it that the burden of proof was with the State to prove every material allegation. As such, any error in overcharging the jury was cured. Accordingly, the Court reversed the habeas court's decision to grant Defendant the relief he requested.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.