Troutman v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Troutman's malice-murder conviction, holding that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient and that the circumstantial-evidence statute did not apply because the State presented direct evidence of guilt. The court declined to review most prosecutorial-misconduct claims because they were unpreserved or resolved favorably below. Although counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to the prosecutor's misstatement of the reasonable-doubt burden, Troutman failed to show prejudice from that or any other alleged deficiency.