Garrett Kyle Anderson v. State, A21A0452

Background:

Anderson locked his keys in his car at a Walmart; a locksmith, Tansu Kanlica, unlocked it and demanded $175; Anderson directed Kanlica to follow him to a SunTrust ATM.
While Kanlica followed, Anderson drove erratically (turns, U-turns, lane changes); Kanlica followed and later lost control, striking three teenage pedestrians; two died and one was severely injured.
Anderson was tried and convicted of two counts of first‑degree vehicular homicide, serious injury by vehicle, and aggressive driving; the trial included expert accident reconstruction and a 911 call recording from Kanlica.
The State introduced OCGA § 24‑4‑404(b) evidence: two prior speeding convictions and two Vine videos showing Anderson engaging in racing/drifting talk; Anderson objected as impermissible propensity evidence.
Anderson sought to introduce (a) evidence of a 2013 incident in which Kanlica allegedly tried to abduct a girl, (b) post‑trial testimony from Kanlica (who later invoked the Fifth), and (c) testimony from Alan Carlton recounting alleged statements by Kanlica; trial court excluded this evidence and denied motions to strike; Anderson appealed.

Issues:

Issue	Anderson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admission of 404(b) evidence (prior speeding convictions and Vine videos)	Evidence was offered to show propensity and thus inadmissible	Evidence relevant to intent and knowledge for reckless/aggressive driving; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; limiting instruction given	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible for intent/knowledge and not unduly prejudicial
Exclusion of Kanlica’s 2013 attempted abduction evidence	Showed Kanlica’s motive/bent of mind, intent to steal/flight, and that Kanlica would overcharge or flee	Evidence sought to prove propensity; not relevant to whether Anderson brake‑checked or eluded; highly prejudicial	Affirmed — exclusion proper; lack of relevance and undue prejudice made it inadmissible
Motion to strike Kanlica’s trial testimony after Kanlica invoked Fifth at new‑trial hearing	Kanlica’s refusal to testify at the hearing denied Anderson the right to further cross‑examine; trial testimony should be stricken	Witness may assert Fifth at later proceedings; prior trial cross‑examination was complete; proffered new testimony would be impeachment only	Affirmed — trial court properly denied motion; no authority to strike prior trial testimony and proffered impeachment wouldn’t warrant new trial
Exclusion of Alan Carlton’s testimony about statements Kanlica allegedly made (Brady/confrontation claim)	Carlton had exculpatory information showing Kanlica fabricated testimony; State suppressed Brady material; testimony admissible as admission or statement against interest	Carlton’s proffers were hearsay, vague, not party‑opponent admissions, and lacked required corroboration for statements against interest; notices were public record	Affirmed — exclusion proper; hearsay/unreliable, not admissible under party‑opponent or statement‑against‑interest rules; no Brady showing; 911 recording also undercut the proffer

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Kirby v. State, 304 Ga. 472 (standards for admissibility of other‑acts evidence under Rule 404(b))
Frazier v. State, 309 Ga. 219 (OCGA § 24‑4‑403 balancing and prosecutorial need)
Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (limits on purposes for other‑acts evidence)
Hood v. State, 309 Ga. 493 (admissibility when evidence relates to one of charged or predicate offenses)
Wimberly v. State, 302 Ga. 321 (post‑trial recantation/impeachment generally insufficient for new trial absent impossibility)
Virger v. State, 305 Ga. 281 (use of statements by a defendant against that defendant when offered by the State)
United States v. Pacchioli, 718 F.3d 1294 (treatment of non‑party statements and party‑opponent rule)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)