Smart v. State, 299 Ga. 414

Norman Smart was convicted of malice murder and related offenses for the beating death of his wife, Lauren Smart; jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to life without parole (plus consecutive term for cruelty to children).
Evidence at trial: deliveryman heard Smart threaten Lauren the day before; Lauren found dead in master bedroom; autopsy showed multiple blunt-force traumas and strangulation; shoe sole on Smart visually matched injuries; no forced entry; Lauren’s son heard beating; inconsistent statements by Smart to police and in jail letter.
State introduced prior-act testimony from Katie Tucker (sister of Smart’s ex-wife) describing a pattern of domestic violence and control by Smart. Trial court admitted this under OCGA § 24-4-404(b).
Trial court also admitted multiple hearsay items under the residual exception (OCGA § 24-8-807): friends’ statements about Lauren’s fear, prior reports of abuse, Lauren’s writings and texts, and Facebook messages. Appellant challenged admissibility on appeal.
Appellant raised additional claims: voir dire comment referencing Lauren as Smart’s wife and ineffective assistance of counsel (trial claim withdrawn pre-appeal; appellate ineffectiveness to be raised in habeas). Court reviewed preserved and unpreserved claims (plain-error where applicable).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smart)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	Evidence (autopsy, threats, shoe match, son's testimony, inconsistent statements) proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Evidence insufficient; lack of substantial direct evidence	Affirmed; evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia
Admissibility of prior-acts (Rule 404(b))	Testimony shows motive, intent, and absence of accident (pattern of control/violence)	Admission unfairly prejudicial and used to show character conformity	Admissible: relevant to motive; probative value outweighed prejudice; eyewitness basis adequate
Admission of assorted hearsay under residual exception (Rule 807)	Statements/writings are trustworthy, probative, and necessary given domestic-violence context	Statements lack exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness; Confrontation concerns	No plain error: not clearly erroneous to admit; even if error, State's strong case makes reversal unwarranted
Voir dire reference to victim as wife	Reference reflected indictment/allegation for juror screening	Comment improperly intimated judge’s view on an element (family-violence relationship)	No error: preliminary reference akin to reciting indictment and not an expression of opinion
Ineffective assistance of counsel	N/A (State)	Trial-counsel ineffective; appellate counsel ineffective for abandoning claim	Trial-ineffectiveness claim waived by amended motion; appellate-ineffectiveness not remediable on direct appeal (raise in habeas)

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (evidentiary sufficiency standard)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error framework referenced)
Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (adopting Eleventh Circuit three-part 404(b) test)
State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156 (Rule 404(b) relevancy principles)
Kelly v. State, 290 Ga. 29 (Georgia adoption of federal plain-error test for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255 (Eleventh Circuit three-part test for other-acts evidence)
United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 959 (prior-act evidence admissible to show motive)
Rivers v. United States, 777 F.3d 1306 (residual hearsay exception is for rare, exceptional circumstances)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (testimonial statement analysis under Confrontation Clause)