Marchman v. State
299 Ga. 534
| Ga. | 2016Background
- On July 9–10, 2009, Joshua Marchman, Joshua Arnold, and Isaiah Walker committed a multi-incident crime spree in Cobb County that began with a planned robbery of a drug seller and resulted in the murders of Nicholas Garner and Lateisha Weatherspoon, multiple kidnappings, robberies, and assaults. Walker later killed himself when police pursued the suspects.
- Victims and witnesses (including Dimitri Hunter, Shanice Green, Brandon Cox, and Marcus Woodward) identified Marchman and Arnold at trial; additional physical evidence included matching shell casings, DNA linking Hunter to a trunk, burned vehicle and destroyed phones, and fingerprints of Arnold on the blue Marquis.
- Investigators obtained call-detail and cell-tower records from service providers via an exigency request followed by a grand jury subpoena and court order; those records linked the suspects’ phone numbers and locations to the crimes.
- Marchman and Arnold were jointly tried, convicted on multiple counts including malice murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and aggravated assault; the jury returned guilty verdicts and the trial court imposed life sentences (and other consecutive terms); motions for new trial were denied and both appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, addressing challenges to sufficiency of the evidence, admissibility of cell phone records, photographic identifications, certain hearsay admissions, jury recharge language, and other evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Marchman: evidence was entirely circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence | State: witness IDs, physical evidence, phone records and admissions proved guilt as perpetrator or party | Evidence sufficient; convictions upheld under Jackson v. Virginia standard |
| Cell‑phone records / Riley warrant claim | Marchman: service‑provider records and cell‑tower data required a warrant under Riley | State: no phone seized or searched; records obtained from third‑party provider; no reasonable expectation of privacy; business‑records foundation laid | Riley inapplicable; records admissible; suppression denial affirmed |
| Photographic lineups / in‑court IDs (Green, Cochran) | Marchman: photo arrays were impermissibly suggestive (unique clothing, gaze, single‑photo IDs) tainting in‑court IDs | State: witnesses had independent, reliable basis for in‑court IDs based on prolonged, contemporaneous observation | Pretrial suppression properly denied; in‑court IDs had independent origin and were reliable |
| Admission of out‑of‑court statements (co‑conspirator / necessity) | Arnold: admission of unavailable co‑perpetrator’s statements violated Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules | State: statements were non‑testimonial and admissible under co‑conspirator and necessity exceptions; ample evidence of conspiracy | Statements admissible; even if one necessity admission questionable, any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence |
| Jury recharge on parties to a crime | Marchman: recharge included an unrequested instruction (failure to prosecute principals) that could confuse jury | State: recharge accurately restated original charge and answered jury question | No error; recharge was correct and resolved jury’s question |
| Convenience‑store witness identification & lay testimony | Marchman/Arnold: owner’s ID of clerk on surveillance was improper lay identification | State: clerk himself authenticated photos; owner’s testimony cumulative; identification of defendants from photos remains for jury | Any error was harmless; testimony admissible or cumulative |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (search of digital contents of cell phones incident to arrest requires warrant)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (rules on co‑defendant confession and Confrontation Clause)
- McBride v. State, 291 Ga. 593 (Ga. 2012) (in‑court identification reliability standard)
- Moss v. State, 298 Ga. 613 (Ga. 2016) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber and call‑toll records)