Brown v. the State, 332 Ga. App. 635

On Nov. 14, 2011, Isaac Brown and his brother Abraham assaulted Mario Fambrough; witnesses testified the Brown brothers produced handguns and pistol-whipped Fambrough, who suffered facial injuries. Brown testified he was unarmed and the fight was over a drug deal.
After treatment, Fambrough was detained on a probation violation and placed in a holding cell with David Brown (another brother); David later called Fambrough from jail and, on a recorded call, said his mother would pay Fambrough to say the brothers were not involved. That recording was played at trial.
Antonio Phillips, an inmate in the same cell block as Brown, testified that Brown had previously spoken to him about the upcoming trial and that Phillips received an unsigned letter (taken by a corrections officer) urging Phillips to testify that Brown and his brother were unarmed; the trustee who handed the letter allegedly identified it as from Brown.
The State introduced the recorded phone call and the letter (and testimony about how Phillips received it) at trial; Brown was convicted of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during a crime, and possession of a firearm by a felon; acquitted of armed robbery.
On appeal from denial of a new trial, Brown argued (1) the recorded call contained hearsay and was inadmissible, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony identifying the letter’s authorship (arguing insufficient authentication/hearsay).

Issue	Brown's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether recorded jail-call statements (David to Fambrough) were hearsay	The statements were hearsay offered to prove the truth (that mother offered to pay) and thus inadmissible	The statements were offered not for truth but to show they were made and their effect on Fambrough (nonhearsay)	Affirmed: not hearsay; admissible to show effect on listener and explain his conduct
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to testimony that a trustee identified the letter as from Brown (authentication/hearsay)	Failure to object allowed inadmissible hearsay/authentication evidence in and prejudiced the defense	Even without that testimony, the letter itself and surrounding facts sufficiently authenticated it; any error was harmless and not prejudicial	Affirmed: no ineffective assistance—authentication sufficient; any hearsay testimony was cumulative/harmless

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
United States v. Webster, 649 F.2d 346 (out-of-court statement is hearsay only if offered for truth)
United States v. Hanson, 994 F.2d 403 (statement offered to show effect on hearer is not hearsay)
Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75 (accept trial court findings; outlines Strickland standard in Georgia)
United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (prima facie authentication standard for documents)
Williams v. State, 280 Ga. 584 (document authentication may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
Graham v. State, 331 Ga. App. 36 (out-of-court statement admissible to show effect on listener)
Skinner v. State, 318 Ga. App. 217 (admission of hearsay harmless when cumulative)
Moody v. State, 277 Ga. 676 (similar harmlessness principle)