De La Cruz v. State
303 Ga. 24
Ga.2018Background
- Victim Brenda Gibbs was found dead in her workplace from blunt-force head trauma on Aug. 20, 1995; a broken two-by-four and a blood-covered metal conduit pipe were at the scene; victim had defensive wounds and a nail-embedded wood piece in her head.
- Appellant Eduardo De La Cruz and Gibbs had a child together and a history of abuse; De La Cruz had reportedly threatened to kill Gibbs and collect insurance; he was beneficiary on her policy.
- Evidence presented: statements about threats, blood and hair samples from scene, a fingerprint on the pipe (not matching De La Cruz), a black hair from the victim’s shirt, and shoe-sole fluorescence tying shoes that had been in the lab to someone who walked in the phosphoric-acid area.
- Defense presented three witnesses including an alibi; a pretrial witness (Andres) who gave sworn testimony at a probable-cause hearing was unavailable at trial; defense sought to read his prior testimony.
- Post-conviction: De La Cruz filed a delayed motion for new trial (resolved ~21 years after conviction) and a post-conviction motion for DNA testing of fingernails, the two-by-four, the conduit pipe, and a hair sample for touch DNA; both motions were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (De La Cruz) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior sworn testimony of unavailable alibi (Jose Andres) | Andres’s prior sworn testimony should be read to the jury because he is unavailable and due diligence to locate him was exercised | Trial court lacked proof of due diligence/unavailability; even if admissible, testimony was cumulative and not exculpatory for the relevant time | Denial affirmed: no adequate showing of unavailability/due diligence; exclusion harmless because testimony would not provide alibi for murder time and was cumulative |
| Evidence pointing to third-party (Otis Sanders) — motion in limine excluding witness Leriche | Defense proffered Leriche would implicate Sanders (false alibi, past threats/assault) to raise reasonable inference of De La Cruz’s innocence | Proffer did not connect Sanders to corpus delicti nor show Sanders was at the plant that night; at most cast bare suspicion | Exclusion affirmed: proffer failed to raise reasonable inference of innocence or directly link Sanders to the murder |
| Admission of hearsay testimony under necessity exception (statements of victim about abuse) | Testimony by Denise De La Cruz recounting prior abuse statements was admitted under necessity but lacked indicia of trustworthiness | Trial court found declarant unavailable and statements trustworthy and corroborated by bruising and prior threats | Admission affirmed: Tippins’s testimony was non-hearsay observation; Denise’s hearsay met necessity/trustworthiness under totality of circumstances |
| Officer Rowe’s remark during direct examination that he knew defendant committed the murder because defendant lied; denial of mistrial | Such testimony invaded the province of the jury and required a mistrial | Trial judge sustained objection at the time; defense did not move for mistrial promptly (after cross and after resting defense) | Mistrial motion untimely and thus not preserved; denial affirmed |
| 21-year delay resolving motion for new trial — due process claim | Delay violated due process / speedy-appeal rights | Delay partly attributable to both parties and counsel changes; defendant also failed to assert rights for long periods and showed no prejudice | Denial affirmed: Barker factors weighed against defendant’s claim (lengthive delay found, but defendant failed to show prejudice and failed to assert right timely) |
| Post-conviction DNA testing motion (touch DNA on fingernails, two-by-four, pipe, hair) | Modern touch-DNA testing could exonerate; testing should be ordered under OCGA §5-5-41 | Jury already informed physical evidence tied to victim; prior testing inconclusive; movant failed to show reasonable probability of acquittal if testing favorable | Denial affirmed: statutory requirements not met (failed to show reasonable probability testing would produce acquittal); evidence at trial already showed no physical link to De La Cruz |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204 (unavailability when witness permanently abroad and beyond subpoena power)
- Thomas v. State, 290 Ga. 653 (due-diligence requirement to admit former testimony)
- Gilreath v. State, 298 Ga. 670 (requirements for evidence pointing to third party to raise reasonable inference of defendant’s innocence)
- Curry v. State, 291 Ga. 446 (evidence that merely casts bare suspicion on another is inadmissible)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four-factor speedy-trial/delay analysis)