Sneiderman v. State
336 Ga. App. 153
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- In Nov. 2010 Russell Sneiderman was murdered; Hemy Neuman later admitted he shot Russell and that he had an affair with Andrea Sneiderman. Neuman was tried for murder; he pled NGRI and was found guilty but mentally ill. Neuman v. State, 297 Ga. 501.
- Andrea Sneiderman was indicted on multiple counts arising from her statements and conduct during the DPD investigation and her testimony at Neuman’s trial: hindering apprehension (OCGA § 16-10-50), concealment/false statements (OCGA § 16-10-20), and perjury (OCGA § 16-10-70).
- Counts at issue on appeal included Count 1 (hindering—alleged destruction/concealment of texts, phone records, and relationship), Count 2 (concealment from DPD of romantic relationship), Counts 3, 8, 10 (false statements to DPD), and Count 6 (perjury for denying a romantic relationship while under oath at Neuman’s trial).
- Sneiderman moved to general demurrer during trial arguing Counts 1 and 2 failed to allege essential elements (mens rea for hindering; materiality for concealment). She also challenged sufficiency of evidence on several counts, the materiality/corroboration for perjury, the judge’s jury charge on materiality, and admission of hearsay under the necessity exception (OCGA § 24-8-807).
- The jury convicted Sneiderman; some perjury convictions were merged. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the indictment language and trial evidence satisfied statutory elements; the perjury was material and corroborated; the jury charge did not improperly express the judge’s opinion; and the hearsay admission did not constitute reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demurrer to Count 1 (hindering): indictment omitted mens rea element | Sneiderman: Count 1 failed to expressly allege intent to hinder apprehension/punishment | State: reference to OCGA § 16-10-50 and factual allegations imply requisite intent | Held: Indictment adequate; language and facts warrant inference of requisite mens rea; demurrer denied |
| Demurrer to Count 2 (concealment): indictment omitted materiality element | Sneiderman: Count 2 failed to allege that relationship was material to DPD investigation | State: statutory citation + allegations that concealment occurred during murder investigation imply materiality | Held: Indictment adequate; materiality reasonably inferable; demurrer denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 8 & 10 (false statements to DPD) | Sneiderman: evidence showed statements were true or not as alleged (e.g., location wording) | State: evidence of intimacy, shared travel, emails, hotel changes supported falsity as charged | Held: Evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to support convictions |
| Perjury (Count 6): materiality and corroboration | Sneiderman: false testimony was not material to issues at Neuman trial and lacked required corroboration | State: her denial was material to Neuman’s motive/mental state; bartender testimony, emails, hotel evidence corroborated | Held: Materiality satisfied (could influence issue); corroborating circumstances sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| OCGA § 16-10-20 application and duty to disclose | Sneiderman: no duty to disclose romantic relationship to police; statute does not reach passive nondisclosure | State: she voluntarily answered officers and made affirmative false responses (trick/scheme) that impeded investigation | Held: Evidence showed affirmative false responses; statute applies only to active concealment but she engaged in such conduct; conviction affirmed |
| Jury charge on perjury materiality (OCGA § 17-8-57) | Sneiderman: judge improperly expressed opinion that materiality had been proved | State: charge appropriately explained materiality and collateral credibility issue; did not assume facts | Held: No violation of § 17-8-57; charge permissible |
| Admission of Neuman’s out-of-court statements (necessity exception) | Sneiderman: statements to Melanie White lacked circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness | State: declarant unavailable; consistency across many calls/emails and corroborating evidence established trustworthiness | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting under OCGA § 24-8-807; any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Eubanks, 239 Ga. 483 (general demurrer may be raised anytime)
- Henderson v. Hames, 287 Ga. 534 (indictment must allege all essential elements)
- Smith v. Hardrick, 266 Ga. 54 (indictment requirement and notice of nature of accusation)
- State v. Howell, 194 Ga. App. 594 (statutory reference plus facts can inform defendant of charged offense)
- Morris v. State, 310 Ga. App. 126 (inference of requisite criminal intent from indictment language)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- Walker v. State, 314 Ga. App. 714 (perjury elements and materiality test)
- Rai v. State, 297 Ga. 472 (necessity exception and circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness)