Mathis v. State, 291 Ga. 268

Appellant Paul Mathis was convicted of malice murder and related offenses for the 2006 shooting death of Jurell Williams.
The sole eyewitness, Larry Foster, identified Mathis (nickname “Payday”) as the shooter after an exchange over money.
Co-defendant Bryant (nickname “Ray-Ray”) assisted in searching Williams after the shooting; both fled in a red car.
Witnesses described a dying declaration by Williams naming “Ray-Ray” and “Payday”; Mitchell testified Williams had discussed threats before the shooting.
The State introduced hearsay through Foster and Williams’ statements; Dukes testified to a dying declaration; defense argued insufficient basis for admission.
Mathis challenged evidentiary rulings and trial counsel’s effectiveness; the trial court denied a motion for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Mathis argues insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	State contends testimony and identifications establish guilt.	Evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
Mistrial for hearsay testimony	Hearsay testimony about a dispute should have prompted mistrial.	Trial court’s curative instructions were sufficient; any error harmless.	Harmful error not shown; curative instructions and cumulative evidence rendered it harmless.
Admissibility under necessity exception for dying declaration	Dying declarations were admissible under necessity and trustworthiness standards.	Not preserved; even if preserved, necessity criteria were met.	Necessity exception properly applied; testimony admitted.
Ineffective assistance for calling Mitchell as a witness	Counsel erred by not challenging Mitchell’s testimony strategy.	Counsel’s strategic decision was reasonable; unforeseen testimony does not prove deficient performance.	No ineffective assistance; strategy was reasonable.
Ineffective assistance regarding Dukes’ dying declaration objection	Counsel failed to object to surprising dying declaration testimony.	No basis for objection; Dukes’ statements fit dying-declaration rules and discovery limits.	No ineffective assistance; defense cross-examined and impeachment pursued.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ((1979)) (sufficiency review for conviction)
Heard v. State, 274 Ga. 196 ((2001)) (harmlessness of hearsay when cumulative)
Brown v. State, 278 Ga. 810 ((2005)) (necessity exception elements and trustworthiness)
Devega v. State, 286 Ga. 448 ((2010)) (trustworthiness under necessity exception)
Hunt v. State, 278 Ga. 479 ((2004)) (reciprocal discovery obligations and statements)
Morris v. State, 280 Ga. 179 ((2006)) (harmlessness of hearsay evidence)
Smith v. Stacey, 281 Ga. 601 ((2007)) (admissibility and limits of hearsay evidence)