Debelbot v. the State.

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support Albert and Ashley Debelbot’s malice‑murder convictions, but vacated the lower court’s denial of their motion for a new trial and remanded for further proceedings because the trial‑court’s credibility findings and blanket Harper analysis prevented a meaningful Strickland review of ineffective‑assistance claims. Justice Bethel concurred, emphasizing the State’s erroneous closing‑argument description of reasonable doubt.