Bolling v. State, 300 Ga. 694

Bolling was convicted after a second trial of malice murder, burglary in the first degree, and possession of a knife during a felony for the November 2012 killing of Parviz Moledina.
Moledina was found stabbed 33 times in her home; evidence included blood spatter, a knife fragment, and a torn money wrapper reading “$5,000.”
Bolling’s Volvo was recovered; Bolling’s fingerprints were found in Moledina’s house and in the vehicle; a receipt with Bolling’s name was found in the car.
Eldridge, a co-defendant, testified at Bolling’s first trial; his videotaped statement was admitted to rebut alleged motives for his testimony.
Prior to Bolling’s second trial, Eldridge could not be located despite substantial efforts; the State sought to admit Eldridge’s prior testimony under OCGA 24-8-804, which the court granted.
Bolling challenged the evidence as insufficient and argued improper admission of Eldridge’s prior testimony and videotaped statement; the court affirmed, finding sufficient corroboration and proper admissibility under the rules of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for malice murder and knife possession	Bolling asserts Eldridge’s testimony alone ties him to Moledina’s murder	Eldridge acted as an accomplice with motive to lie and lacked corroboration	Evidence, including Bolling’s presence, blood matching DNA, and corroboration, suffices
Admissibility of Eldridge’s prior trial testimony under OCGA 24-8-804	State complied with availability requirements; Eldridge unavailable after reasonable efforts	State failed to prove unavailability or reasonable efforts	Admissible; State made reasonable efforts to locate Eldridge
Admission of Eldridge’s videotaped statement to rehabilitate credibility	Video rebutted defense theory of recent fabrication due to plea deal	Prior statement could not be used to rehabilitate general credibility	Proper under OCGA 24-6-613; statements predated alleged improper motive

Jackson v. State, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (Ga. 2015) (corroboration may be slight and can be circumstantial)
United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000) (unavailability shown by reasonable, good-faith locating efforts)
United States v. Samaniego, 345 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2003) (witness unavailability and reasonable efforts to locate authorized admission)
Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) (prior consistent statement admissible to rebut implied fabrication when predating motive)
Duggan v. State, 285 Ga. 363 (Ga. 2009) (rehabilitation of witness credibility with prior statements)
Mosley v. State, 298 Ga. 849 (Ga. 2016) (context for motive-based impeachment)
Mills v. State, 193 Ga. 139 (Ga. 1941) (definition of accomplice and corroboration standard)
Parker v. State, 296 Ga. 586 (Ga. 2015) (editorial note on evidence rule interpretation)
Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (Ga. 2016) (interpretation of Evidence Rules alongside federal standards)