Moore v. State
290 Ga. 805
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Moore moved in with the victim in 2003; there were observed instances of Moore striking the victim.
- On June 10–11, 2004, the victim was found dead from crushing chest injuries; a witness described Moore threatening to kill the victim and dispose of the body.
- A homeless man witnessed a man fitting Moore’s description carrying a body and committing an assault nearby; latent thumb print of Moore found near the crime scene.
- The State introduced evidence of Moore’s involvement in the 1995 death of Robert Littrell, a separate but similar death, to establish identity and bent of mind.
- The trial court admitted Littrell evidence without a proper Rule 31.3(B) hearing or on-the-record findings; the jury convicted Moore of malice murder.
- Supreme Court of Georgia held that sufficiency of the evidence supported the conviction, but Rule 31.3(B) violations require remand for a proper hearing and findings or a new trial if admissibility is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the similar transaction evidence was properly admitted. | Moore argues no proper Rule 31.3(B) hearing or on-record findings were made. | State contends the in-chambers discussion sufficed as compliance. | Remand for a proper Rule 31.3(B) hearing and explicit findings is required. |
| Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to sustain a murder conviction. | Moore contends possible defects in proof. | Sufficiency under Jackson v. Virginia supports conviction. | Evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. |
| What remedy follows improper admission of similar transaction evidence. | Without proper hearing, remand is necessary for proper admissibility ruling. | If admissible, findings and potentially new trial; otherwise new trial warranted. | Case remanded to conduct proper Rule 31.3 hearing and make required findings; new trial if warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (1991) (mandatory Rule 31.3 hearing and explicit on-the-record findings required)
- Stewart v. State, 263 Ga. 843 (1994) (compliance with Rule 31.3 mandatory; remand for proper proceedings)
- Cavender v. State, 208 Ga.App. 61 (1993) (burden on State to show admissibility and connection relying on Rule 31.3)
- Sheppard v. State, 294 Ga.App. 270 (2008) (remand for proper Rule 31.3 procedures when required)
- McNeal v. State, 263 Ga. 397 (1993) (remand for in-camera hearings to determine compliance with evidentiary rules)
- Hall v. State, 230 Ga.App. 741 (1998) (remand procedures when Rule 31.3 errors occur)