Davenport v. State, 309 Ga. 385

Background

On March 11, 2016, deputies found Debora Abney shot in the front passenger seat of a vehicle; Brian Davenport was at the scene and initially claimed Abney shot herself after a DFCS hearing earlier that day.
Crime‑scene and forensic indicators contradicted suicide: gun in Abney’s left (non‑dominant) hand, mud in the barrel, wiped blood patterns on the dashboard, blood on the windshield, primer residue on Davenport’s clothing, and the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide.
Davenport gave multiple, inconsistent accounts to investigators about the gun’s location and his actions; he was observed wiping himself at the scene.
Multiple witnesses (Abney’s daughters, mother, DFCS caseworker, former landlord) and other evidence established a pattern of domestic abuse by Davenport; the defense expert conceded suicide in the described position was unlikely.
A Catoosa County jury convicted Davenport of malice murder and related counts; the court imposed life without parole for malice murder and additional concurrent and consecutive terms; Davenport appealed raising sufficiency, Rule 404(b) evidence, and hearsay issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for malice murder and other counts	The State: circumstantial and forensic evidence, witness testimony, and Davenport’s inconsistent statements support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt and exclude reasonable hypotheses of suicide	Davenport: evidence did not exclude reasonable hypothesis that Abney committed suicide	Court: Evidence sufficient under Jackson and OCGA § 24‑14‑6; jury reasonably rejected suicide hypothesis and convicted Davenport
Admission of 404(b) evidence (prior abuse of ex‑wife 27 years earlier)	The State: prior violent act is relevant to intent, motive, and pattern of violence	Davenport: evidence of remote prior abuse was unfairly prejudicial and improperly admitted under Rule 404(b)	Court: Even assuming erroneous admission, error was harmless given overwhelming admissible evidence of violence and other strong forensic evidence
Admission of residual hearsay under Rule 807 (Abney’s statements to mother and DFCS worker)	The State: Abney’s out‑of‑court statements had sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and high probative value to show motive and context for abuse	Davenport: Statements lacked trustworthiness (e.g., due to substance abuse, mental illness) and were impermissible hearsay	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; statements had sufficient indicia of trustworthiness or were cumulative of admissible testimony, and any error was harmless
Court’s sua sponte review of unraised sufficiency claims in non‑death murder cases	N/A (policy/practice point)	Davenport did not challenge this practice in this appeal	Court: Announced end of routine sua sponte sufficiency review in non‑death penalty murder appeals beginning with December 2020 term; retained discretion to do so in exceptional circumstances

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation principles)
Frazier v. State, 308 Ga. 450 (sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence principles)
Smart v. State, 299 Ga. 414 (trustworthiness and probativeness of domestic‑violence victim statements)
Jacobs v. State, 303 Ga. 245 (admission of victim’s statements and texts under residual hearsay exception)
Tanner v. State, 301 Ga. 852 (residual hearsay exception to be used rarely and only with exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness)
Miller v. State, 303 Ga. 1 (analysis of guarantees of trustworthiness focuses on declarant and circumstances)
Adkins v. State, 301 Ga. 153 (harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional errors)
Anglin v. State, 302 Ga. 333 (erroneous hearsay admission harmless when cumulative, admissible evidence exists)
Dixon v. State, 302 Ga. 691 (discretionary consideration of sua sponte issues and precedent on appellate practice)