McKoy v. Georgia
Annotate this CaseAppellant Raymond McKoy was convicted of malice murder in connection with the shooting death of his estranged wife’s girlfriend, Lauren Hudson. Appellant argued the trial court erred in ruling journal entries he had written were admissible and erred in striking his direct testimony after he refused to submit to cross-examination. At trial, the defense argued that Appellant shot Hudson in self-defense because she pointed a gun at him. Appellant was the final witness called by the defense. He testified on direct examination, and the trial was then adjourned for the day. The next morning, with Appellant present but before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the prosecutor announced that he intended to use some entries from Appellant’s journals to impeach Appellant’s testimony. The defense argued that the journals, which were found in a bag in Appellant’s car, had been seized illegally. The State did not contend that they were legally seized, but argued that even illegally obtained evidence can be used for impeachment. After a lengthy discussion, the trial court ruled that the journals generally would be admissible, heard argument on a few specific entries the State wanted to introduce, and concluded that those entries would be admissible. After this ruling, Appellant refused to return to the witness stand to be cross-examined. The court said that if Appellant did not retake the stand, it would tell the jury to “totally disregard all of his testimony.” The Georgia Supreme Court determined the journals at issue here were never actually admitted into evidence due to Appellant’s decision not to testify on cross-examination. Thus any error the court may have made in that ruling in limine was not preserved for appellate review. Once Appellant withdrew his consent to be cross-examined as a witness, he could no longer be treated as a witness at all. The Supreme Court found the trial court clearly informed Appellant of the consequence if he refused to retake the stand, allowed Appellant to consult his counsel, and then asked Appellant to make an informed decision. Appellant elected not to retake the stand and thereby suffer the consequence of his testimony being excluded from the evidence he presented in his defense. Finding, therefore, no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction.
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.