Background
On January 4, 2021, Javaris Compton and Rashad Bolton were cellmates at Hancock State Prison. That morning, fellow inmates alerted Correctional Officer Joshua Andrews that Bolton needed help. Officer Andrews found Bolton bleeding in the locked cell and handcuffed both men through the cell door’s flap. When emergency responders arrived and opened the cell, Compton had maneuvered his handcuffs from his back to his front and produced a shank from his pants. No weapons were found on Bolton or elsewhere in the cell. Bolton was pronounced dead at the scene; the medical examiner attributed his death to multiple sharp force injuries.
After being removed from the cell, Compton was taken to the medical unit. When Warden Annettia Toby asked if he was okay, Compton stated he did not want Bolton as a cellmate, referenced family issues, and asked to be left alone. A grand jury indicted Compton for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. He was tried in April 2024 and convicted on all counts, receiving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole on the malice murder count.
At trial, the State called Georgia Department of Corrections Special Agent Timothy Konzelman, who testified that he read Compton his Miranda rights and that Compton “refused to talk” with him. Defense counsel waited until after Agent Konzelman was questioned on an unrelated subject before approaching the bench to object and move for a mistrial. The trial court sustained the objection, gave a curative instruction directing the jury to disregard the testimony, but denied the mistrial. Compton renewed his motion after the instruction, which was again denied. His subsequent motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice LaGrua. The court held that Compton’s sole claim of error — that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his mistrial motion after testimony about his post-Miranda silence was introduced — was not preserved for appellate review. The court applied the well-settled rule that a motion for mistrial must be made contemporaneously, at the earliest opportunity once the defendant becomes aware of the objectionable matter.
Because Compton did not object when the prosecutor first asked Agent Konzelman whether he had attempted to speak with Compton — a question defense counsel later conceded was objectionable — and did not immediately move for a mistrial after Agent Konzelman stated Compton refused to speak, the motion was untimely. Compton instead permitted the State to continue questioning the agent on an unrelated subject before raising his objection. The court found this delay fatal to preservation, consistent with its prior decisions in Moss v. State, 322 Ga. 757 (2025), and Pittman v. State, 318 Ga. 819 (2024).
The court declined to reach the merits of whether admitting evidence of Compton’s exercise of his right to silence was improper, as the procedural default was dispositive. All justices concurred.
Key Takeaways
- A motion for mistrial based on improper testimony must be made at the moment the objectionable statement is uttered — allowing even brief continued questioning before objecting can constitute a fatal waiver under Georgia law.
- Defense counsel’s acknowledgment on appeal that the prosecutor’s predicate question was itself objectionable underscored that the opportunity to object arose before the harmful answer was given, further supporting the finding of waiver.
- A trial court’s curative instruction, while potentially sufficient to preserve the conviction on the merits, does not revive an untimely mistrial motion for purposes of appellate review.
- The court reaffirmed a consistent line of authority — Moss, Pittman, Kilpatrick, and Thaxton — establishing that Georgia’s contemporaneous-objection rule applies with full force to mistrial motions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict application of Georgia’s contemporaneous-objection requirement to mistrial motions in criminal cases. Defense counsel must act immediately upon hearing objectionable testimony — waiting even a few questions before moving for a mistrial risks forfeiting the issue entirely on appeal, regardless of how prejudicial the underlying evidence may be. The ruling is particularly significant in cases involving a defendant’s exercise of constitutional rights, such as the right to silence after Miranda warnings, where the stakes of admission are high but the preservation window is narrow.
For practitioners, Compton serves as a pointed reminder that the decision to seek a curative instruction rather than immediately moving for a mistrial carries lasting procedural consequences. Accepting a curative instruction — even under protest — does not substitute for a timely motion, and courts will not reach the merits of a trial court’s mistrial ruling when the motion itself came too late.