Clark v. GeorgiaAnnotate this Case
Appellant Constance Clark was convicted of malice murder and a firearm offense as a party to the 2005 shooting death of her husband, William. On
appeal, she argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to offer unsworn testimony during the State’s opening argument, in admitting testimony by a medical examiner who did not perform the victim’s autopsy, and in permitting a witness’s videotaped statement to be played for the jury multiple times in alleged violation of the continuing witness rule. Finding no reversible error after review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed.