Moore v. State
293 Ga. 676
| Ga. | 2013Background
- Calvin Moore was convicted of malice murder for the 2004 strangulation death of Lucious Harris, Jr.; this is Moore’s second appeal following remand for a Rule 31.3(B) similar-transaction hearing (Moore I).
- Harris’s body was found on a railroad track; medical evidence showed crushing chest injuries and throat injury consistent with manual strangulation.
- The State presented similar-transaction evidence about the 1995 death of Robert Littrell, a frail MS patient whom Moore had cared for and who sustained similar throat and chest injuries.
- At trial Moore claimed Littrell’s injuries resulted from an accidental or CPR-related event; after this Court vacated the judgment on procedural grounds, the trial court held a Williams/Rule 31.3(B) hearing on remand.
- The trial court found (and this Court upheld) that the State showed appropriate purpose (identity/bent of mind), sufficient proof Moore committed the Littrell act, and sufficient similarity such that probative value outweighed prejudice; conviction and denial of new-trial relief were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of similar-transaction evidence under Williams/Rule 31.3(B) | State: evidence of Littrell death admissible to show identity/bent of mind; victims and injuries similar; Moore admitted causing Littrell’s injuries | Moore: deaths not sufficiently similar; Littrell’s death was accidental, so evidence is prejudicial character evidence | Admission affirmed: trial court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous and no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence |
| Right to confront/effective hearing on remand | Moore: hearing was inadequate; court did not consider his later-filed written argument and prior opinion precluded admission | State: trial court held on-the-record hearing, gave Moore opportunity and 30 days to file brief; Moore’s previous appeal required remand for the hearing, not exclusion | Denied: Moore had full opportunity; no confrontation violation |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to suppress/contest fingerprints, clothing, expert testimony) | Moore: counsel failed to seek suppression of fingerprint cards, clothing seized from aunt’s home, and failed to impeach/exclude fingerprint expert | State/trial court: counsel reasonably declined meritless suppression motions, aunt voluntarily gave clothing, counsel consulted FBI examiner and made strategic litigation choices | Denied: counsel’s performance not deficient; strategic choices reasonable and no prejudice shown |
| Post-trial motions for expert testing and other procedural complaints (latent prints authenticity, judge expressing opinion, record omissions) | Moore: trial court abused discretion refusing to compel latent-print tape lift or appoint experts to show exhibits were photographs/forged; judge improperly opined and interrupted witnesses; transcript omissions warrant dismissal | State: expert testimony and record supported authenticity of exhibits; judge’s comments were after trial and factual; trial court acted within discretion | Denied: no special need shown for experts; factual findings not clearly erroneous; no reversible judicial misconduct; dismissal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (establishes three-part test for similar transactions evidence)
- Moore v. State, 290 Ga. 805 (procedural remand for Rule 31.3(B) hearing)
- Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (standard of review for similar-transaction admissibility)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Hall v. State, 292 Ga. 701 (preservation of evidentiary objections)