Merritt v. State: Georgia Supreme Court reinforces preservation requirements for shackling and Brady claims and upholds strategic non‑objection under Strickland

Introduction

In Merritt v. State, decided November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Richard Merritt’s convictions for malice murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime arising from the brutal killing of his mother, Shirley Merritt, on February 1, 2019. The opinion addresses a familiar constellation of appellate challenges—insufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel in multiple forms, trial shackling without specific findings, an alleged Brady violation, and cumulative error. It ultimately offers two particularly consequential clarifications for Georgia practice:

Failure to object at trial continues to bar appellate review of shackling and Brady claims discovered during trial unless raised “at the earliest practicable moment.”
Strategic decisions not to object—even to emotionally charged or arguably inadmissible testimony—will not be second-guessed under Strickland where counsel can articulate a reasonable tactical basis.

The case arises against the backdrop of Merritt’s earlier guilty pleas to 34 felonies involving client thefts and elder exploitation. On the day he was ordered to surrender to begin serving a 15-year prison term, he was with his mother; within hours, he abandoned his GPS ankle monitor, disposed of two cell phones, left in his mother’s car, and fled to Tennessee under a false identity. He was arrested seven months later. A DeKalb County jury convicted him on all counts in May 2023; the trial court imposed life without parole for malice murder and a consecutive five-year term for the knife-possession offense. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his motion for new trial, leading to this appeal.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed across the board. It held:

Sufficiency of the evidence: The circumstantial evidence—GPS data, timeline, lack of forced entry, Merritt’s flight, disposal of phones, and living under an alias—was constitutionally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia and satisfied Georgia’s circumstantial evidence standard in OCGA § 24‑14‑6.
Ineffective assistance (cross-examination of ex-wife): Counsel’s non-objections and follow-up questioning in response to the ex-wife’s testimony about a prior act of violence, trauma from Merritt’s crimes, and a doctor’s negative impressions were strategic and not deficient.
Ineffective assistance (closing argument): The claim based on comparisons to other high-profile cases was forfeited by not being raised in the motion for new trial. Using a photograph that happened to be a booking photo—but which was not apparent to the jury as such—was not objectively unreasonable.
Shackling: The claim that the trial court failed to make findings justifying leg restraints was unpreserved due to no trial objection.
Brady: The claim was waived because Merritt learned about the allegedly undisclosed “second cartoon” during trial yet did not raise a Brady claim at trial or in his motion for new trial.
Cumulative error: With no established deficiencies or trial court errors, there was nothing to cumulate.

Analysis

Precedents cited and how they shaped the decision

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) and Moulder v. State, 317 Ga. 43 (2023): The Court applied the familiar “any rational juror” standard, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Jones v. State, 319 Ga. 758 (2024): The Court reiterated that the State need not produce any particular type of evidence (e.g., DNA or fingerprints) so long as the evidence is competent—an important rejoinder to arguments that the absence of forensics negates sufficiency.
OCGA § 24‑14‑6; Peacock v. State, 314 Ga. 709 (2022); Shellman v. State, 318 Ga. 71 (2024): On circumstantial evidence, whether alternative hypotheses are “reasonable” is primarily for the jury. The Court endorsed the jury’s rejection of Merritt’s intruder theory as unreasonable given the scene and his subsequent conduct.
Young v. State, 305 Ga. 92 (2019): Flight and evasion can support inferences of guilt. Merritt’s cut monitor, phone disposal, interstate flight, and concealment under a false identity were probative.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and Burke v. State, 320 Ga. 706 (2025): The Court applied Strickland’s two-prong test and emphasized deference to strategic decisions, requiring objectively unreasonable performance plus a reasonable probability of a different outcome to establish prejudice.
Pritchett v. State, 314 Ga. 767 (2022); Watkins v. State, 285 Ga. 355 (2009); Gomez v. State, 301 Ga. 445 (2017); Troutman v. State, 320 Ga. 489 (2024): These decisions anchor the notion that eliciting an unexpected answer is not per se deficient and that choosing not to object (to avoid highlighting or to exploit credibility issues) can be a reasonable strategy.
Anthony v. State, 311 Ga. 293 (2021): Wide latitude in closing argument; defending counsel’s discretionary choices absent clear unreasonableness.
Mahdi v. State, 312 Ga. 466 (2021); Allen v. State, 317 Ga. 1 (2023): Ineffective-assistance claims must be raised at the earliest practicable moment (ordinarily in the motion for new trial) and ruled upon to preserve them; asking questions at the hearing alone does not amend the motion.
Munn v. State, 313 Ga. 716 (2022) and Tavarez v. State, 319 Ga. 480 (2024): Shackling claims require contemporaneous objection to preserve, though the Court reiterates that trial courts should make case-specific findings before restraining a defendant.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Battle v. State, 301 Ga. 694 (2017): A Brady claim discovered during trial must be raised then (or in the motion for new trial); failure to do so waives appellate review.

Legal reasoning

1) Sufficiency of the evidence

The Court found “ample evidence” supporting the verdicts. GPS monitoring placed Merritt at his mother’s home from about 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the day she was killed—the very day he was to surrender to start a 15-year sentence. He left in her car, took both phones, disabled the ankle monitor at 4:14 p.m., “got rid” of the phones, did not surrender at 5:00 p.m., and lived under a false identity until his apprehension months later in Nashville. There were no signs of forced entry or struggle; the murder weapon was a kitchen knife whose blade broke off in the victim’s face, and a nearby dumbbell matched the blunt-force injuries.

These facts satisfied Jackson v. Virginia and OCGA § 24‑14‑6. The State was not required to present DNA or fingerprint evidence (Jones). The jury was authorized to reject Merritt’s narrative—two armed men invaded, murdered his mother with household items rather than their guns, yet left him uninjured and free to flee—as an unreasonable hypothesis of innocence (Peacock; Shellman).

2) Ineffective assistance of counsel

The Court resolved all ineffective assistance claims on the deficiency prong, concluding that counsel’s choices fell within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct.

Cross-examination of the ex-wife (alleged prior violence; trauma; doctor’s impressions): Counsel asked about Merritt’s reputation for violence based on Merritt’s own assurances that no violence would be alleged; when the witness unexpectedly claimed one physical incident, counsel chose not to object but to impeach with the lack of prior reports and her admitted hatred of Merritt and later “recovered” memories from therapy. He likewise declined to object to “ruined life”/“trauma” testimony to underscore bias toward Merritt and because those comments concerned the known theft crimes rather than the murder. Regarding the doctor’s negative impressions, counsel saw hearsay but strategically avoided objections in front of a potentially sympathetic witness, instead emphasizing the absence of any contemporaneous reports and using the testimony to attack credibility. The Court credited these as sound, tactical choices (Pritchett; Gomez; Troutman; Burke).
Closing argument—comparisons to other cases: Forfeited. Although explored at the hearing, this ground was not raised in the written motion for new trial nor ruled upon (Mahdi; Allen).
Closing argument—use of a booking photo: Not deficient. Counsel used what he considered the “best photo” available—a suit-and-tie picture with no markings signaling it was a booking photo—and the record did not show the jury recognized it as such. Given wide latitude in closing, using a neutral-looking photo was not objectively unreasonable (Anthony).

3) Shackling

Merritt did not object to being shackled during trial; the claim that the court failed to make specific findings was therefore unpreserved (Munn). Importantly, the Court again reminded trial courts that due process limits restraints absent a trial-specific, documented justification (Tavarez). The admonition signals continuing scrutiny of restraint practices even when particular claims are forfeited.

4) Brady

Counsel learned during trial that an additional, “second cartoon” related to the theft case had been given to law enforcement. No Brady objection was lodged at trial, and no Brady claim was raised in the motion for new trial. Under Battle, a Brady claim known during trial but not raised until appeal is waived. The Court therefore did not reach materiality or suppression questions.

5) Cumulative error

With no discrete errors or proven deficiencies, there was nothing to cumulate (Burke).

Impact

Preservation discipline—shackling and Brady: Merritt reinforces that defendants must object contemporaneously to restraints and raise Brady issues immediately upon discovery (or at least in the motion for new trial). Mere knowledge during trial without prompt action forecloses appellate review. Defense counsel should build internal checklists for on-the-record objections and amendments to post-trial motions when new information surfaces mid-trial.
Strategic non-objection validated: The Court continues to defer to reasoned trial strategy, including decisions not to object to damaging or dramatic testimony to avoid highlighting it, to preserve rapport with a sympathetic witness, or to leverage it to show bias. Merritt gives practitioners a roadmap: make the strategy explicit in the record at the motion-for-new-trial hearing to secure deference under Strickland.
Circumstantial cases without forensics: Prosecutors can secure murder convictions without DNA or fingerprints when behavior evidence (timelines, flight, concealment, electronic monitoring, disposal of devices) coherently aligns with guilt and the defense hypothesis is implausible. Defense teams should anticipate and counter the narrative weight of flight and concealment.
Closing visuals: Using a photograph that originated as a booking photo is not per se deficient if the image itself looks ordinary and lacks “booking” hallmarks. Counsel should nonetheless ensure that such images appear neutral and that the record reflects their non-prejudicial characteristics.
Trial courts and restraints: Even though unpreserved here, the Court’s reminder to make case-specific restraint findings will influence trial judges to create robust records before shackling defendants, reducing the risk of reversible error in cases where objections are made.

Complex concepts simplified

Malice murder: In Georgia, a person commits malice murder by unlawfully causing another’s death with malice aforethought (intent to kill or an abandoned and malignant heart). See OCGA § 16‑5‑1(a).
Possession of a knife during commission of a felony: Having a knife with a blade of three or more inches during a felony involving another person is itself a felony. See OCGA § 16‑11‑106(b).
Jackson sufficiency: Appellate courts do not re-weigh evidence. The question is whether any rational juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence most favorably to the verdict.
Circumstantial evidence rule (OCGA § 24‑14‑6): Circumstantial proof must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt. Whether a defense hypothesis is “reasonable” is chiefly for the jury to decide.
Strickland ineffective assistance: A defendant must prove (1) deficient performance—objectively unreasonable under prevailing norms—and (2) prejudice—a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for the errors. Courts defer to reasonable strategic choices.
Preservation/waiver: To preserve an issue for appeal, a party must object at the time the issue arises and raise it in post-trial motions if appropriate. Failing to do so waives review. Raising a topic during a hearing without amending the written motion or securing a ruling does not preserve it.
Brady obligations: The State must disclose material, favorable evidence. But if the defense learns of the evidence during trial and does not promptly assert a Brady claim, appellate review is waived.
Shackling: Physical restraints on a defendant should not be used without a case-specific judicial determination that they are justified. However, if defense counsel does not object, the claim is ordinarily not reviewable on appeal.

Conclusion

Merritt v. State is primarily a reinforcement decision. It adds heft to several steadily developing strands in Georgia appellate jurisprudence:

Circumstantial evidence—without forensics—can sustain a murder conviction when paired with powerful behavioral indicators such as flight, concealment, and electronic monitoring data.
Strategic non-objection to problematic testimony—particularly to avoid spotlighting it or to frame a witness as biased—falls within the broad zone of reasonable professional assistance under Strickland.
Preservation rules matter. Claims concerning shackling and Brady must be asserted at the first opportunity—during trial or in a properly amended motion for new trial. Failure to do so is fatal on appeal.

For trial practitioners, the opinion underscores the value of real-time objections and a clear strategic record. For trial courts, it reiterates the importance of making specific findings before restraining defendants. For litigants, it is a reminder that the absence of DNA or fingerprints does not render a case “insufficient” when other evidence coherently points to guilt. In affirming Merritt’s convictions, the Court offers a concise primer on sufficiency, strategy deference, and preservation that will shape Georgia criminal practice going forward.