Moore v. State, 294 Ga. 682

Moore, age 16, participated in a robbery attempt targeting Gaines, using a long gun.
Gaines redirected the plan to Hammond; Moore and others went to Hammond’s home where Hammond and grandmother were attacked.
Moore was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
DNA evidence linked Moore to the Hammond crime scene; GBI biologist testified about DNA profiles derived from outside lab testing.
Trial court sentenced Moore to life for felony murder, life for armed robbery, 20 years for aggravated assault, 20 years for burglary, and 5 years on each of three firearm counts; one malice murder conviction was not entered.
Court vacated one firearm-possession conviction under State v. Marlow, leaving two counts; affirmed remaining convictions and sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DNA-profile testimony violated Confrontation Clause preservation.	Moore contends outside-lab testing data used by the GBI biologist violated confrontation.	State argues no preservation error since trial allowed foundation and no confrontation objection was timely made.	Preservation not shown; no established reversible error.
Whether the tattoo evidence of a gun and 'Chopper Zone' was admissible.	Tattoo evidence suggested propensity and was inadmissible.	Tattoo evidence was offered to prove propensity to use a firearm.	Admissible only for propensity; Court finds admission error but harmless given other strong evidence.
Whether Moore could be convicted of three firearm-possession counts when two victims existed in one continuous crime spree.	All three counts supported by the same firearm during multiple crimes.	Under Marlow, conviction should be for two counts, one per victim, with merger of the third.	Conviction vacated for one firearm count; affirmed remaining firearm counts and other convictions.

State v. Marlow, 277 Ga. 383 (2003) (merger rule for firearm possession across multiple crimes in a spree)
Belmar v. State, 279 Ga. 795 (2005) (tattoo evidence inadmissible to prove propensity; harmless error here)
Bradley v. State, 292 Ga. 607 (2013) (merger/agency considerations in firearm counts during crime)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (confrontation concerns with expert relying on out-of-court data)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation clause and admissibility of testimonial reports)