Hammock v. State, 311 Ga. App. 344

Hammock was convicted of theft by taking an automobile.
The alleged offense occurred April 22, 2008, with Hammock in Bartow County after cashing a check and lingering at a convenience store.
Amy Ellison discovered her car missing after Hammock cut in front of her at the checkout, and the store owner Patel and an officer reviewed surveillance video.
Ellison, Patel, and the officer identified Hammock from the videotape as the person who drove away.
The videotape was later overwritten; witnesses testified about their observations of the conduct on the tape, not out-of-court statements.
The trial court admitted the evidence and Hammock appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence and trial counsel’s effectiveness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft by taking	Hammock	Hammock	Evidence sufficient to support conviction
Effectiveness of trial counsel regarding hearsay objection and evidentiary strategy	Hammock argued counsel was ineffective for not raising hearsay objection and for evidence choices	State contends decisions were strategic; objections would not have changed outcome	Counsel not ineffective; objections and evidence choices were strategic or non-meritorious

Lott v. State, 303 Ga.App. 775 (2010) (hearsay definition and nonverbal conduct testimony not hearsay)
Blunt v. State, 275 Ga.App. 409 (2005) (hearsay generally relates to out-of-court statements)
Diaz v. State, 275 Ga.App. 557 (2005) (form of hearsay analysis for out-of-court statements)
Davis v. Civil Svc. Comm., etc. of Philadelphia, 820 A.2d 874 (Pa.2003) (surveillance videotape nonhearsay for nonverbal conduct)
Troutman v. State, 297 Ga.App. 196 (2009) (testimony about telephone number on phone not hearsay)
Creel v. State, 216 Ga. 233 (1960) (contents of a photograph not hearsay)
Haugland v. State, 253 Ga.App. 423 (2002) (standard of review for sufficiency when reviewing evidence)