Baker v. the State (two Cases)

Summary

The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of both defendants for malice murder and firearm possession. It held that the trial court did not plainly err by omitting an accomplice-corroboration instruction because the evidence did not obviously show that the identifying witness was an accomplice, and that the evidence was sufficient to support Baker's convictions. The court also held that Laguerre failed to show ineffective assistance because counsel's decision to use the witness's fear testimony in cross-examination was objectively reasonable, and there were no errors to cumulate.