Crawford v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Crawford’s convictions, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to support his convictions as a party to the crimes despite conflicting accounts and the shooter’s exculpatory testimony. The court also held that counsel performed deficiently by failing to object promptly to the prosecutor’s improper closing argument, but Crawford failed to show a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict because the trial court corrected the misstatement and the evidence supporting the lesser offense was weak.