Dunbar v. State, 309 Ga. 252

Shanika Dunbar was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (vacated), cruelty to children (acquitted), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; convicted of malice murder and firearm possession and sentenced to life without parole plus five years.
On June 9, 2016, Dunbar confronted Theron Robbins after a prior incident; during a heated argument Robbins was shot twice and died at the scene.
Witnesses heard the argument, a gunshot, a racial epithet, then another gunshot; Robbins’ son testified his father did not draw his gun during the dispute.
Dunbar claimed she shot Robbins in self-defense and later denied involvement to police; the murder weapon was never recovered.
Phone and social-media records tied Dunbar to others at the scene; shortly after the shooting Dunbar called acquaintances and moved Robbins’s son and told him not to tell anyone.
Four days after the murder police searched Dunbar’s home and found an AK-47 and various ammunition; the trial court admitted those items for impeachment after Dunbar testified she “never wanted to see a gun” and her husband had removed the weapon she used.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence / self-defense	Dunbar: evidence supports she acted in self-defense (Robbins pulled a gun).	State: viewed in light most favorable to conviction, witnesses and circumstantial evidence support guilt and jury could reject self-defense.	Affirmed — evidence sufficient; jury could reject justification.
Admission of AK-47 and ammunition	Dunbar: items were irrelevant, prejudicial, and should have been excluded under OCGA § 24-4-403.	State: admissible to impeach Dunbar’s testimony that she did not want to see a gun and that her husband removed the murder weapon.	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; admissible for impeachment with limiting instruction; no Rule 403 abuse.
Testimony about withdrawal of consent to search	Dunbar: eliciting testimony that consent to search was withdrawn violated her right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and GA Const. ¶ XVI.	State: police request to search and withdrawal were not testimonial; Paragraph XVI precedent (Elliott/Olevik) does not extend to home-search-consent withdrawals.	Affirmed — no plain error; Fifth Amendment not implicated (non‑testimonial) and Paragraph XVI not extended to this context.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
Goodson v. State, 305 Ga. 246 (jury decides justification defenses)
Taylor v. State, 302 Ga. 176 (scope of cross-examination and impeachment)
Nichols v. State, 282 Ga. 401 (old Evidence Code on res gestae and unrelated evidence)
Venturino v. State, 306 Ga. 391 (Rule 403 exclusion is extraordinary remedy)
Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (Paragraph XVI applies to compelled acts like breath tests; limited scope)
Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 (related limitation on Paragraph XVI scope)
Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (Fifth Amendment protects testimonial evidence)
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (distinction between testimonial and non-testimonial evidence)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (same)
Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (felony-murder vacatur by operation of law)