Leili v. State, 307 Ga. 339

Background

Victim Dominique Leili disappeared July 9, 2011 after a late-night fight with her husband, Matthew Leili; her naked body was found July 16 near the couple’s neighborhood.
Evidence at trial showed a history of controlling and abusive behavior by Matthew (physical restraint, tracking, audio/video surveillance, threats), and Dominique had told friends she planned to leave and feared Matthew.
Law enforcement executed a Georgia search warrant at the Leili home (seizing computers, DVRs, electronics, vehicles) and later a Vermont warrant at Matthew’s subsequent residence; multiple follow-up warrants targeted specific seized electronic devices.
Initial forensics produced little; a cold-case reexamination recovered audio recordings of domestic altercations, evidence the home cameras had been disabled and video deleted, and recordings of private phone calls.
Matthew was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and unlawful eavesdropping; he appealed, arguing suppression errors (warrants), improper Rule 404(b) other-acts testimony from his ex-wife, and ineffective assistance for failing to challenge additional warrants.

Issues

Issue	Leili's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of Georgia residence search warrant (probable cause / breadth re: electronics)	Warrant lacked sufficient probable cause and was overbroad as to seizure of electronic devices.	Warrant met the fair-probability standard given disappearance, recent fight, body found nearby, history of domestic incidents, cameras/GPS; seizure of electronics was reasonably tailored.	Warrant upheld: magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; electronic seizure permissible and limited to items related to the crimes.
Validity of Vermont residence search warrant (probable cause / breadth)	Warrant lacked probable cause and was overbroad.	Affidavits (daughter’s testimony about hidden devices and jail calls asking her to hide/delete data) supported fair probability that relevant electronics were at Vermont residence; seizure described targeted devices.	Warrant upheld: sufficient probable cause and particularity for electronic devices.
Admission of ex-wife Lucey’s Rule 404(b) testimony	Testimony about similar past conduct was inadmissible character evidence and prejudicial.	Testimony admissible to show motive, intent, knowledge; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice and jury could find the acts occurred.	Even if admission was erroneous, any error was harmless because extensive similar evidence about Matthew’s conduct toward Dominique existed and Lucey displayed bias.
Ineffective assistance for not challenging remaining device warrants	Trial counsel unreasonably failed to challenge ~10 follow-up warrants (general warrants / lack particularity), prejudicing defense.	Counsel reasonably litigated the two principal residence warrants; other warrants flowed from those searches and were limited to device-specific, crime-related evidence—strategy was reasonable.	Claim denied: counsel’s strategy was reasonable; appellant did not show deficient performance or resulting prejudice under Strickland/Kimmelman.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
DeYoung v. State, 268 Ga. 780 (magistrate’s probable-cause role; fair-probability test)
Glenn v. State, 302 Ga. 276 (warrant/probable-cause review; fair-probability standard)
Hourin v. State, 301 Ga. 835 (presumption of validity for facially regular warrants)
Reaves v. State, 284 Ga. 181 (particularity and scope limits for electronic searches)
Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (three-part test for Rule 404(b) other-acts evidence)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (ineffective-assistance standard when failure to litigate Fourth Amendment claim is alleged)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Strickland two-part test for ineffective assistance)
United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343 (particularity flexibility for property descriptions in warrants)