Freeman v. the State
329 Ga. App. 429
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- July 25, 2006: Atlanta PD used a confidential informant (CI) to make a controlled purchase of crack at 1718 Thoms Drive; officer obtained a search warrant based on the controlled buy.
- Officers executed the warrant and found Tracey Freeman in a sparsely furnished bedroom; marijuana and powder cocaine were found on a laptop; a K-9 alerted to a floor vent where 50.62 grams of crack cocaine (82% pure) was recovered.
- Freeman was indicted for trafficking in cocaine (former OCGA §16-13-31(a)(1)) and possession of <1 oz. marijuana; jury convicted on both counts and the court sentenced him to 30 years.
- At trial, the lead officer testified about the CI’s controlled buy and later introduced the CI’s buy report stating the seller was a person known as “Trace.” Freeman objected on Confrontation Clause grounds; the trial court admitted the report for impeachment/explanation of officer’s conduct.
- Freeman appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that he knew the weight of the cocaine (an element under the statute) and (2) the admission of the CI’s out-of-court statement violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Freeman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether State proved Freeman knew the cocaine weighed ≥28g | Evidence of 50.62g, high purity, drugs hidden in bedroom Freeman occupied, and five prior drug convictions show knowledge | Freeman said he didn’t live there, was only using the computer, and denied knowledge of drugs | Held: Evidence sufficient to support trafficking conviction (knowledge may be inferred from circumstances and similar transaction evidence) |
| Confrontation: admissibility of CI’s buy report naming seller as “Trace” | Admission was permissible to explain officer’s conduct and for impeachment; defense opened the door by cross-examining officer about the affidavit | CI’s out-of-court ID was testimonial; Freeman had no opportunity to cross-examine the CI; defense expressly objected (no waiver) | Held: Admission violated the Sixth Amendment; error was not harmless because CI’s ID was non-cumulative and likely affected verdict; conviction reversed and new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment)
- Scott v. State, 295 Ga. 39 (2014) (statute construed to require knowledge of nature and quantity of drug as an element)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence — view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Cromer v. United States, 389 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2004) (CI statements to police that identify defendant are testimonial and cannot be admitted absent confrontation)
- United States v. Holmes, 620 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (CI statements implicating defendant offered to prove guilt are testimonial and violate Confrontation Clause)
- Miller v. State, 289 Ga. 854 (2011) (Confrontation Clause errors may be harmless only if evidence is overwhelming or the challenged evidence was cumulative)