McGarity v. State, 311 Ga. 158

On November 16, 2013 James Hendon was shot and killed outside a Paulding County convenience store; a single shell casing was found at the scene.
Multiple eyewitnesses (Jeffrey Berry, Eddie Head, Steve White, and others) testified that Appellant Chanze McGarity struck and then shot Hendon; some witnesses later gave day-after statements to police consistent with their trial testimony.
Two days after the homicide police arrested McGarity at a friend’s apartment and recovered a black 9mm handgun; ballistics linked that gun to the fatal bullet and DNA on the gun matched McGarity.
A jury convicted McGarity of malice murder, felony murder, several weapon counts, aggravated assault of Hendon, reckless conduct and simple battery as to Head, and related offenses; he received life without parole plus additional terms.
On appeal McGarity challenged: (1) limitations on cross-examining witnesses about prior convictions; (2) admission of prior consistent statements through a police captain; and (3) permitting a witness to refresh recollection with an apparently undisclosed chain-of-custody document.
The Georgia Supreme Court held the trial court improperly admitted prior consistent statements of three witnesses but found that error harmless as to the murder-related counts and harmful as to the two counts involving Head (those two convictions were reversed); the other claims were rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McGarity)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Limitation on cross-examining witnesses about prior convictions	Trial court’s preclusion prevented probing details (gang affiliation, circumstances of convictions) relevant to bias and credibility	Rulings were proper; defense never made an offer of proof to preserve the issue	Waived for ordinary review; no plain error shown because appellant failed to make the substance of excluded evidence known to the court
Admission of day-after prior consistent statements via Capt. Gorman	The day-after statements were after alleged collusion/fabrication and thus improperly bolstered credibility	Statements admissible under OCGA § 24-6-613(c) to rehabilitate witnesses and were harmless if erroneous	Trial court abused discretion in admitting prior consistent statements for Barner, Head, and White; error harmless for murder-related counts but harmful as to counts charging battery and reckless conduct involving Head — those two convictions reversed
Allowing witness to refresh recollection with a document not produced pretrial	Non-disclosure (Brady/Giglio and statutory) prejudiced McGarity’s ability to test chain of custody	Document was an internal chain-of-custody printout; prosecutor gave access at trial; Harlow was not an expert whose written report was required	No abuse of discretion; Brady/statutory claims not established or abandoned; admission upheld

Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333 (explains limits on admitting prior consistent statements to rebut charge of recent fabrication)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Walker v. State, 301 Ga. 482 (preservation requirement: offer of proof for excluded evidence)
Williams v. State, 302 Ga. 147 (clarifies that proponent must make evidence known to trial court to preserve appellate review)
Abney v. State, 306 Ga. 448 (prior consistent statements cannot rehabilitate a general attack on credibility)
Davenport v. State, 309 Ga. 385 (harmless-error framework and review of sufficiency alongside harmful evidentiary error)
Puckett v. State, 303 Ga. 719 (analysis of harmlessness where bolstering evidence was admitted)
Character v. State, 285 Ga. 112 (improper bolstering requires assessing verdict without the bolstered testimony)