Babbage v. State
296 Ga. 364
Ga.2015Background
- Victim found hogtied, beaten and stabbed in his DeKalb County apartment on Oct. 18, 2011; apartment ransacked and numerous electronics, guns, and cash stolen; victim died of his injuries.
- Babbage knew the victim, had stayed at the apartment, had motive over a TV dispute, and blood/DNA matching the victim was found on pants identified as his; his wife owned a white Chevrolet Malibu seen at the scene.
- Hall was identified by a witness leaving the scene, had fingerprints on the white Malibu, was seen with stolen electronics, and had firearms at his residence matching stolen items; he cut his hair and burned clothing that day.
- Co-defendant Kennebrew’s DNA was on a cigarette at the scene; cell records show multiple communications among Babbage, Hall, and Kennebrew around the crime time via a tower near the apartment.
- Both men were convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, and related offenses at a joint trial and sentenced to life without parole plus consecutive terms; they appealed, challenging sufficiency and various ineffective-assistance and evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (Babbage) | State: circumstantial and physical evidence ties Babbage to scene and stolen property. | Babbage: (not raised on general grounds) | Evidence sufficient to convict as principal or party to crime under Jackson. |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to parties instruction (Babbage) | Babbage: indictment didn’t specifically charge him as a party; counsel should have objected. | State: indictment need not specify party liability; objection would be meritless. | No ineffective assistance; objection would lack merit. |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to challenge LWOP sentencing under Apprendi (Babbage) | Babbage: counsel should have argued LWOP required jury factfinding per Apprendi. | State: LWOP is within statutory range after 2009 amendment; Apprendi inapplicable. | No deficient performance; Apprendi does not apply. |
| Sufficiency and evidentiary/ineffective-assistance claims (Hall) | Hall: challenged sufficiency; complained about witness mentioning prior incarceration and multiple counsel failures. | State: physical, circumstantial, testimonial, phone and post-offense conduct support conviction; remarks and strategy not reversible or deficient given evidence. | Evidence sufficient; remark about incarceration not preserved and not reversible; counsel not ineffective on claimed grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury finding required for facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum)
- Romer v. State, 293 Ga. 339 (2013) (standards for assessing counsel performance under Georgia law)
- Williams v. State, 291 Ga. 19 (2012) (Georgia statutory scheme permits life without parole within sentencing range)
- Hassel v. State, 294 Ga. 834 (2014) (presence, motive, and conduct before/after can support accomplice liability)
- Rush v. State, 294 Ga. 388 (2014) (same; presence and conduct can support inference of participation)
- Owens v. State, 286 Ga. 821 (2010) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient when it makes innocence implausible)
- Lanier v. State, 288 Ga. 109 (2010) (nonresponsive mention of incarceration does not necessarily place character in issue)
- Isaac v. State, 269 Ga. 875 (1998) (passing reference to defendant’s criminal history not reversible error)