Coleman v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Coleman’s malice-murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence. It held that evidence of Coleman’s methamphetamine use was admissible as intrinsic evidence and under the balancing test, any error concerning the urine-test evidence or refusal evidence was harmless or did not satisfy plain-error requirements, and limiting the defense expert’s speculative testimony did not affect the verdict. The court also rejected Coleman’s ineffective-assistance claim because, even assuming deficient performance concerning closing argument, she could not show prejudice.