Bolling v. State
300 Ga. 694
| Ga. | 2017Background
- Victim Parviz Moledina was found stabbed 33 times in her home on Nov. 21, 2012; extensive blood spatter, a severed finger, a separated knife blade, and a torn money wrapper were recovered.
- Bolling’s fingerprints were found in Moledina’s house and vehicle; police recovered Moledina’s car at a mall, and items at Bolling’s residence included a house key, computer, $1,500, prescription bottles in Moledina’s name, and blood-stained jeans and a sock matching Moledina’s DNA.
- Justin Eldridge (co-defendant) testified at Bolling’s first trial and gave a pre-plea videotaped police statement admitting Bolling told him he stabbed someone and describing events leading to use/abandonment of the Volvo. Eldridge later pleaded under Georgia’s First Offender Act to a related theft charge.
- Bolling’s first trial ended in a hung jury. Before the second trial the State could not locate Eldridge despite investigatory efforts and moved to admit his prior trial testimony under OCGA § 24-8-804; the trial court admitted it.
- The court also admitted Eldridge’s pre-plea videotaped police statement at both trials to rebut Bolling’s suggestion that Eldridge had an improper motive to lie. Bolling was convicted at retrial of malice murder, first-degree burglary, and felony weapon possession; sentences were imposed and appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Bolling's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for malice murder and weapon possession | Conviction rests only on Eldridge (non-eyewitness) and is uncorroborated; Eldridge had motive to lie | Physical and forensic evidence (blood on jeans matching victim; spatter consistent with stabbing; items linking Bolling to scene) corroborates accomplice testimony | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed (Jackson standard) |
| Admissibility of Eldridge’s prior trial testimony under OCGA § 24-8-804 (unavailability) | State failed to show reasonable, good-faith efforts to procure Eldridge’s attendance; thus declarant not "unavailable" | Investigator exhausted reasonable leads in GA, contacted relatives, left messages; Eldridge may be out-of-state and not locatable | Trial court did not abuse discretion; prior testimony admissible as Eldridge was unavailable |
| Confrontation / opportunity to explore motive at prior trial | Bolling lacked full opportunity to probe Eldridge’s motive/benefit (sentencing unknown at first trial), violating confrontation rights | Bolling extensively cross-examined Eldridge at first trial about charges and plea benefits (facing 20 years; receiving probation) | No deprivation of confrontation rights; opportunity to explore motive was adequate |
| Admission of videotaped pre-plea police statement (prior consistent statement) | Bolling’s general attack on veracity did not justify prior consistent statement; rehabilitation not allowed for a general credibility attack | Bolling specifically suggested improper motive (testimony in exchange for plea); videotape predates any alleged motive and rebuts recent fabrication | Videotape admissible to rehabilitate Eldridge; trial court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (corroboration requirement for accomplice testimony may be slight and circumstantial)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review: evidence must permit a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (Georgia courts may consider federal Rule 804 decisions when construing OCGA § 24-8-804)
- United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.) (reasonable, good-faith efforts required to show unavailability)
- United States v. Samaniego, 345 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir.) (examples of reasonable efforts to locate absent witness)
- United States v. Flenoid, 949 F.2d 970 (8th Cir.) (witness found unavailable after efforts to serve and exhaust leads)
- Duggan v. State, 285 Ga. 363 (prior consistent statement must predate alleged fabrication or motive)
- Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (prior consistent statements admissible only to rebut recent fabrication/improper motive and must predate it)
- Mosley v. State, 298 Ga. 849 (admission of prior statements where defendant suggested witness fabricated testimony after receiving plea offer)
- Mills v. State, 193 Ga. 139 (definition and limits of accomplice testimony requirement)
- Parker v. State, 296 Ga. 586 (Federal Rules stylistic changes do not alter admissibility outcomes under Georgia Evidence Code)
- Lupoe v. State, 284 Ga. 576 (mootness of appeals as to vacated or merged counts)