Danenberg v. State, 291 Ga. 439

1988: Deborah Lamb killed; appellant Danenberg later convicted of malice murder; evidence included estranged marriage, infant present, and gunshot to Lamb while holding infant.
Appellant visited Lambs in Jones County with his red Suzuki Samurai; Lamb shot in front of her young sons; emergency call attributed to a caller identifying as Bob Danenberg.
Autopsy: Lamb died from gunshot to head; gunshot residue on Danenberg; evidence deemed sufficient for beyond-a-reasonable-doubt conviction.
Appellant sought to represent himself; trial court denied, holding no unequivocal assertion of right to self-representation.
Pretrial and trial issues included: admission of videotaped 1988 child interviews, late disclosure of expert (pharmacologist) and a potential discovery violation, and various evidentiary rulings.
Posture: judgment affirmed on appeal; prior habeas relief had occurred; retrial occurred in 2008 after competency proceedings; appeal raised multiple trial-court error contentions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied self-representation.	Danenberg; he made an unequivocal wish to represent himself pre-trial.	Danenberg contends Faretta rights were triggered; noting the handwritten notice sought to dismiss counsel.	No reversible error; not an unequivocal assertion of right to self-representation.
Admission of videotaped 1988 interviews as prior consistent statements.	State contends admissible to rebut forgetful witnesses.	Defense objected to uncrossed prior statements not properly noticed.	Court did not err; testimony admissible where witness testified and was cross-examined.
Admission of non-noticed similar transaction witnesses.	State offered similar-transaction evidence to prove elements.	Failure to provide notice; tests of similarity insufficient.	No abuse of discretion; incidents not sufficiently similar to the homicide.
Continuance denial given discovery and scheduling issues.	State's late production of records and new witnesses impacted defense readiness.	Discretionary decision lacking abuse; ends of justice require balancing.	No abuse of discretion; continuance denial affirmed.
Court-appointment of insanity-expertise and due process concerns.	Statutory procedure potentially violates separation of powers; expert functioning as state employee.	Appointed expert as neutral, not a prosecution witness; due process not violated.	No due process violation; appointment and use of expert proper under statute and case law.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (breathes as to sufficiency standard for evidence in criminal trials)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing waiver of counsel)
Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141 (1990) (Faretta waiver procedure guidance)
Crutchfield v. State, 269 Ga. App. 69 (2004) (equivocal assertion of right to self-representation not shown)
Williams v. State, 291 Ga. App. 279 (2008) (use of prior statements where witness testifies and is cross-examined)
Manning v. State, 273 Ga. 744 (2001) (similar transaction evidence framework)
Tolbert v. State, 260 Ga. 527 (1990) (court-appointed expert independence from prosecution)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (right to testify and restrictions must be justified by legitimate objectives)
Brannan v. State, 275 Ga. 70 (2002) (expert testimony and non-prosecution witness status)
Dyer v. State, 233 Ga. App. 770 (1998) (objection waiver analysis when defense withdraws objection)