Outlaw v. State
311 Ga. 396
Ga.2021Background:
- Victim Angela Rabotte disappeared March 29, 2014; her body was found April 3 with a contact gunshot wound to the back of the head.
- Appellant Charles Outlaw knew Rabotte; physical evidence tied his Dodge Dart to the shooting (gunshot primer residue) and a money counter like the victim’s was found in an attic he frequented.
- Cell-site location information (CSLI) from Rabotte’s and Outlaw’s phones placed them in the same area early March 29 and Outlaw’s MetroPCS phone near the site where the body was found.
- While jailed on unrelated charges, Outlaw met with his girlfriend Lakisha Fort on April 24; she secretly recorded the visit. The recording plus testimony (Fort’s nonverbal signals and a cellmate’s report) suggested Outlaw admitted shooting Rabotte.
- Outlaw was convicted of malice murder and related offenses after a second trial; he appealed, arguing (1) suppression of CSLI, (2) suppression of statements from the jail meeting (Miranda/Fifth Amendment), and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to request a voluntary manslaughter jury charge.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Outlaw) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of CSLI | Carpenter requires a warrant for CSLI; evidence should be excluded. | At the time records were obtained (Apr 2014), SCA orders and binding precedent authorized disclosure; good-faith exceptions apply. | Denied. Court applied Krull/Davis good-faith exceptions because the SCA and binding appellate law authorized the conduct when the officer acted, so exclusionary rule does not apply. |
| Suppression of jail meeting statements (Miranda/Fifth) | Fort acted as a state agent; Outlaw should have received Miranda warnings and statements suppressed as compelled. | Under Perkins and related authority, undercover-agent elicitation and noncustodial conversations need not trigger Miranda; statements were voluntary. | Denied. Court assumed agency but held Miranda not required (not custodial; no coercion); statements voluntary and admissible. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request voluntary manslaughter instruction | Counsel was deficient for not requesting lesser-included instruction, prejudicing the defense. | Trial counsel reasonably pursued an all-or-nothing defense consistent with Outlaw’s denial; not requesting the instruction was strategic. | Denied. Strategic decision was reasonable; no deficient performance shown under Strickland. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (CSLI for a multi-day period is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant)
- Lofton v. State, 854 S.E.2d 690 (Ga. 2021) (applies Krull/Davis good-faith analysis to CSLI obtained under the SCA)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on a warrant)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good-faith exception for reliance on a statute that appears to authorize a search)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith exception when officers rely on binding appellate precedent later overruled)
- Perkins v. Illinois, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) (undercover-agent elicitation in jail does not implicate Miranda)
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) (Fifth Amendment does not bar admission of voluntary statements elicited by government agent posing as friend)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (imprisonment alone does not make an interrogation custodial for Miranda purposes)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Mobley v. State, 307 Ga. 59 (2019) (discusses Georgia precedent on exclusionary rule exceptions and the status of Gary v. State)