Crosby v. State
319 Ga. App. 459
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Crosby was convicted after a jury trial of burglary and possession of tools for burglary.
- Sapp’s home was burglarized on August 3, 2009; a blood-stained screwdriver and blood on a window were found at the scene.
- DNA testing linked the crime-scene blood to Crosby, whose DNA was already in CODIS due to prior convictions.
- Authorities obtained a DNA sample from Crosby; testing showed a match to the scene samples.
- At trial, Sapp could not unequivocally identify Crosby as the intruder; a GBI forensic biologist testified extensively about the DNA testing.
- Crosby testified after the state impeached him with a 1996 burglary conviction; the jury found him guilty on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of DNA evidence | Crosby argues the DNA testimony was inadmissible hearsay and violated confrontation. | Crosby contends the DNA testimony violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation right and was improper hearsay. | DNA testimony admissible; no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to DNA testimony | Crosby alleges counsel should have objected to DNA testimony as hearsay/confrontation error. | Counsel’s failure to object was futile; testimony was admissible. | No ineffective assistance; objections would have been futile. |
| Impeachment with prior conviction without explicit balancing findings | OCGA 24-9-84.1(a)(2) required express on-record balancing findings for the prior burglary admission. | The court admitted the 1996 burglary for impeachment with a limiting instruction. | Trial court erred by not making express balancing findings, but error was harmless. |
| Harmlessness of impeachment error given DNA evidence | Despite error, Crosby argues the conviction could have been different absent the prior-acts impeachment. | DNA match and description sufficed to sustain the verdict regardless of impeachment error. | Harmless error; DNA evidence supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (confrontation and reliability of lab reports)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (surrogate testimony violates Confrontation Clause)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2231 (U.S. 2012) (complex DNA test data and expert testimony; confrontation)
- Powell v. State, 310 Ga. App. 144, 144 (Ga. App. 2011) (impeachment evidence and waivers to objections)
- Chapman v. State, 273 Ga. 348, 349-50 (Ga. 2001) (impeachment evidence; balancing test requirements)
- Disharoon v. State, 291 Ga. 45 (Ga. 2012) (DNA-related evidence and Confrontation Clause)
- Rector v. State, 285 Ga. 714, 715-16 (Ga. 2009) (toxicology/testimony based on others’ findings not hearsay)
- Quiroz v. State, 291 Ga. App. 423, 429 (Ga. App. 2008) (prior-conviction impeachment considerations)
- Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822, 835 (Ga. 2012) (ten-year rule and balancing for prior convictions)
- Lawrence v. State, 305 Ga. App. 199, 202 (Ga. App. 2010) (balancing probative value against prejudicial effect harmlessness)
- Holden v. State, 314 Ga. App. 36, 39 (Ga. App. 2012) (harmless error with overwhelming evidence)