Hardy v. State
306 Ga. 654
Ga.2019Background
- On August 16–17, 2008 Marcus Shirley was shot and killed after driving to an Atlanta apartment complex to buy marijuana; approximately $1,400 was taken from him.
- Witnesses saw multiple men fire at Shirley; one assailant was seen wearing a red hat and one assailant left a blood trail near the scene.
- Investigators recovered a blood trail; CODIS produced a preliminary match to Travaris Hardy, and DNA testing later confirmed the blood matched Hardy. Hardy also sought treatment for a gunshot wound shortly after the shooting.
- Milton and Williams identified Hardy in photo lineups; Milton identified Hardy again at trial. Firearms evidence indicated at least two guns other than a Hi-Point found in a car were used.
- Hardy was tried (co-defendant’s charges nolle prossed), convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, related offenses, and sentenced to concurrent life terms plus additional firearm terms; post-trial motions and ineffective-assistance and constitutional challenges were denied on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Hardy's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence showed Hardy was a bystander; identifications were unreliable | Photo IDs, DNA from blood trail, hospital treatment, lies to police, and corroborating testimony support guilt | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support convictions under Jackson v. Virginia standard |
| Right to be present at pretrial motions hearing (GA Constitution) | Absence from a last-minute pretrial hearing where counsel joined co-defendant’s motions and re-requested a continuance violated his state right to be present | The hearing mainly involved legal argument and procedural continuance request; defendant’s presence would not have been meaningful | No violation: legal-only matters and brief logistical continuance discussion were not a critical stage requiring presence |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel waiving his presence | Heidari ineffectively waived Hardy’s presence, depriving him of rights | Counsel’s waiver was not deficient because the proceeding was not a critical stage and no prejudice resulted | Denied: Hardy failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland standard |
| Confrontation Clause (expert "surrogate" testimony) | Two GBI experts testified about tests performed by absent analysts, violating Crawford/Bullcoming | Even if admission erred, its effect was harmless because (1) lead detective testified to Hardy’s admissions and (2) an unchallenged GBI biologist confirmed the DNA match | Harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt; confrontation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Gadson v. State, 303 Ga. 871 (credibility and eyewitness ID are for the jury)
- Reeves v. State, 288 Ga. 545 (witness credibility is for the jury)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brewner v. State, 302 Ga. 6 (state constitutional right to be present at critical stages)
- Kesterson v. Jarrett, 291 Ga. 380 (history and sources of right to be present)
- Campbell v. State, 292 Ga. 766 (pretrial legal motions ordinarily not a critical stage)
- Heywood v. State, 292 Ga. 771 (logistical/procedural matters do not trigger right to be present)
- Peterson v. State, 284 Ga. 275 (ineffective assistance requires showing deficiency and prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (Confrontation Clause and surrogate lab testimony)
- McCord v. State, 305 Ga. 318 (harmless-error review for confrontation violations)
- Naji v. State, 300 Ga. 659 (presence, companionship, and conduct can support party liability)