Robbins v. State, 300 Ga. 387

Background

On Feb 7, 2011, Susan Robbins was severely beaten and later died from her injuries; Robert Robbins was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault), aggravated assault, and aggravated battery.
Evidence at trial: Susan was found incoherent with severe injuries; she told her niece Elizabeth Grimes that Robert beat her repeatedly that night, identified the plank used, and described Robert’s drinking and pill use.
Grimes initially reported Susan’s account to police but at trial recanted, testifying Susan said her injuries resulted from a fall; police and Susan’s daughter testified about Grimes’s earlier reports.
No eyewitnesses testified to the assault (Robbins’s son, who allegedly witnessed parts of the assault, died before trial); some testimony about the son’s observations came in through other witnesses without objection.
Robbins was acquitted of malice murder but convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery; he appealed, challenging hearsay rulings and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Issue	Robbins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Susan’s out‑of‑court statements to Grimes (hearsay)	Statements were hearsay and inadmissible; admission prejudiced the defense	Susan’s statements were admissible as excited utterances (OCGA § 24‑8‑803(2)) and as present sense impressions or under prior‑statement rules for impeachment	Court affirmed: statements admissible as excited utterances under totality of circumstances and usable substantively and for impeachment
Admission of Grimes’s prior reports via police and daughter (hearsay within hearsay)	Out‑of‑court repetitions are inadmissible	Each level separately fits an exception or is a prior inconsistent statement admissible under OCGA § 24‑8‑801(d)(1)(A) and § 24‑8‑805	Court held the repetitions were admissible because each layer met an exception or impeachment rule
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to medical examiner narrating autopsy	Trial counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudicial	Counsel made a reasonable strategic choice to allow narrative testimony to avoid an unhelpful, rambling witness and because defense did not contest injuries	Court held counsel’s decision was reasonable trial strategy; no ineffective assistance
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to court’s answers to jury questions/delivery of records	Court’s answers and withholding records prejudiced jury and favored causation finding	Court properly instructed jury (continuing witness rule); counsel agreed strategically; discharge summary sufficed; jurors must draw conclusions from evidence	Court held no deficient performance or prejudice; counsel’s agreement was reasonable

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sets sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence standard)
United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir.) (excited‑utterance totality‑of‑circumstances analysis)
United States v. Cruz, 156 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.) (excited utterance admissible hours after event under stress factors)
United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir.) (similar excited‑utterance analysis)
Gross v. Greer, 773 F.2d 116 (7th Cir.) (excited utterance admitted after significant delay when stress persisted)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
Gibbons v. State, 248 Ga. 858 (prior inconsistent statements of a testifying witness admissible substantively)
McNair v. State, 330 Ga. App. 478 (Ga. App.) (discussing OCGA §§ 24‑6‑613 and 24‑8‑801(d)(1)(A))
Wright v. State, 291 Ga. 869 (standard for appellate review of ineffective assistance findings)
Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 647 (trial strategy decisions are presumptively reasonable)
Allen v. State, 293 Ga. 626 (defense strategy reasonable if supported by evidence)
Van Alstine v. State, 263 Ga. 1 (different counsel choices do not alone show ineffective assistance)
Davis v. State, 285 Ga. 343 (continuing witness rule described)