Hendrix v. State
303 Ga. 525
Ga.2018Background
- Victim Roderick Richardson was shot once in the head and died after his car crashed near 52nd and Hopkins Streets late on April 24–25, 2013; a .38-caliber bullet was recovered.
- Thomasina Hendrix (appellant’s grandmother) voluntarily told police that Darrell Hendrix confessed to her that he was involved and that a companion shot Richardson during a planned carjacking.
- Police located Hendrix in Jacksonville and interviewed him; Hendrix admitted being present, said he planned the car theft with a friend (“James”), gave James a .38 revolver, watched James approach Richardson, heard one shot, and later received a .22 pistol.
- Hendrix was indicted on multiple counts; a jury convicted him of three counts of felony murder and related weapon and attempt charges; he was sentenced to life plus additional terms.
- At trial Thomasina became uncooperative after receiving envelopes from Hendrix labeling her a “snitch,” and after Hendrix yelled at her in the courthouse; the State obtained a material-witness warrant and moved to admit her prior statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception.
- The trial court admitted Thomasina’s prior statements under OCGA § 24-8-804(b)(5); the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient and (2) the forfeiture exception applied — alternatively any error was harmless because Hendrix’s own admissions made him guilty as a party to the crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for felony murder convictions | State: Hendrix’s admissions and Thomasina’s statements permit conviction beyond a reasonable doubt | Hendrix: evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — evidence (Hendrix’s admissions plus witness statements) sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia standard |
| Admissibility of Thomasina’s prior statements under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing (OCGA § 24-8-804(b)(5)) | State: Hendrix’s threats, notes calling her a “snitch,” and courthouse outburst show he engaged in wrongdoing intended to and that did procure her unavailability | Hendrix: admission objecting to admission of those hearsay statements (argued improper application) | Affirmed — preponderance of evidence shows Hendrix engaged in wrongdoing intended to procure and that procured her unavailability; statements admissible |
| Standard of proof for forfeiture-by-wrongdoing finding | State: court should apply preponderance standard for preliminary admissibility determinations | Hendrix: implied contest of that standard | Affirmed — court properly applied preponderance standard for preliminary questions of admissibility |
| Harmlessness if forfeiture ruling erred | State: any error harmless because Hendrix admitted participation and would be guilty as party to the crime | Hendrix: admission of Thomasina’s statements was prejudicial | Affirmed — any error harmless given Hendrix’s admissions making him liable under OCGA § 16-2-20 as a party to the crime |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (recognizes forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to Confrontation Clause)
- Hickman v. State, 299 Ga. 267 (2016) (trial court may admit unavailable declarant’s statements if forfeiture shown by preponderance)
- Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (1993) (procedural note regarding vacated convictions by operation of law)
- United States v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2002) (articulates three-part test for forfeiture-by-wrongdoing admissibility)