The Supreme Court of Georgia has affirmed the felony murder conviction of Tommy Joe Byrd, rejecting his appeal that the trial court improperly denied a motion for a mistrial after a witness unexpectedly mentioned that Byrd had recently been released from prison.
Byrd was convicted of felony murder in connection with the May 2020 stabbing death of Jerold Bowden. The central issue on appeal was whether the trial court’s decision to deny a mistrial—instead opting to strike the testimony and move on—was an abuse of discretion, thereby prejudicing Byrd’s right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court, in an opinion issued January 5, 2026, determined that the trial court acted within its bounds.
The Crime and Trial Background
The case stems from an incident in Morgan County on May 4, 2020. Evidence presented at trial suggested that after a gathering involving Bowden, Byrd, and several others, an argument erupted following a minor car accident involving Byrd’s Honda Accord. Witnesses testified that Bowden was holding a pocketknife during the argument. Byrd then retrieved a knife from his car, and after Bowden fell while trying to retreat, Byrd allegedly stabbed him twice.
Bowden died from severe stab wounds. Investigators noted evidence suggesting the body had been moved, as there was little blood at the scene where the body was discovered in a driveway, but gravel was found in Bowden’s mouth and clothing.
Byrd was indicted for malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and aggravated assault. The jury ultimately found him not guilty of malice murder but guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to life without parole.
The Contested Testimony
The issue leading to the appeal arose during the cross-examination of Delores Malcolm, Byrd’s girlfriend, who was present during the altercation. When asked about the nature of her relationship with Byrd, Malcolm responded, “We’ve been on and off relationship. And [Byrd] has just recent got out of prison.”
Byrd’s trial counsel immediately objected, arguing that the statement impermissibly injected Byrd’s prior criminal character into evidence.
Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing that even if the statement was true, the jury should not hear it, as it suggested Byrd was a convicted felon.
The trial judge acknowledged the impropriety but was hesitant to declare a mistrial, noting the gravity of the situation versus the brief nature of the comment. The court offered Byrd’s counsel a choice: either ignore the statement and move forward, or give a specific curative instruction telling the jury to disregard the prison reference entirely.
Byrd’s counsel rejected the curative instruction, fearing it would draw more attention to the comment. Instead, the defense requested only that the objection be sustained and the matter dropped. The trial court agreed, sustaining the objection and ordering the statement stricken from the record.
The Appellate Ruling: No Abuse of Discretion
On appeal, Byrd argued that striking the testimony was insufficient and that the mere knowledge that he was a convicted felon prejudiced the jury against him, warranting a mistrial.
The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the denial of the mistrial motion under an abuse of discretion standard, noting that such a ruling is rarely overturned unless a mistrial is “essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial.”
The court pointed to several mitigating factors:
1. Nature of the Statement: Malcolm’s comment was described as an “unexpected answer” and a “passing reference” that was “brief and nonspecific.” It did not detail the nature of the crime for which Byrd was incarcerated.
2. Trial Court Action: The court took immediate action by sustaining the objection and striking the statement. While the court offered a curative instruction, appellate precedent suggests that the failure to give an *unrequested* curative instruction does not automatically constitute reversible error. Byrd’s counsel specifically requested *not* to give the instruction.
3. Subsequent Conduct: Following the denial of the mistrial, the State did not pursue any further inquiry into Byrd’s criminal history.
Citing previous rulings where brief references to a defendant’s incarceration did not automatically require a mistrial, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s handling—sustaining the objection and striking the remark—was a reasonable response to the situation. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a mistrial.
The judgment affirming Byrd’s conviction and sentence stands.