State v. Hill, 295 Ga. 716

Hill and co-defendants were convicted in 2002 of felony murder and two aggravated assaults arising from a shooting at Amos Street, Bibb County; Hill received life for felony murder and two concurrent fifteen-year probationary sentences for aggravated assaults.
Hill timely moved for a new trial in 2002, amended it in 2003, and the trial court denied the motion in 2003; the direct appeal affirmed in 2004.
Eight years later, Hill filed an extraordinary motion for new trial (2012), amended in 2013, which a successor judge initially granted in 2013 and then withdrew after a State reconsideration; after further hearings, the successor court again granted the extraordinary motion in December 2013.
The successor court credited Shaneka Jackson’s 2012 affidavit as establishing newly discovered exculpatory evidence and granted a new trial on three grounds: (i) Brady violation; (ii) Timberlake v. State standards; (iii) actual innocence; the State challenged these rulings on appeal.
The Supreme Court of Georgia reverses, holding the successor court misapplied law and facts, and that the evidence did not satisfy Timberlake or Brady, so the extraordinary motion should not have been granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the extraordinary-motion-for-new-trial grant was proper	Hill argues Shaneka’s affidavit shows newly discovered exculpatory evidence.	State contends no proper basis existed under Timberlake or Brady.	No; extraordinary motion improperly granted.
Brady v. Maryland compliance and materiality	Hill contends the State suppressed favorable alibi evidence.	State maintains no suppressed favorable evidence; Shaneka’s statements were not exculpatory.	Brady not satisfied; no proof of suppression or material impact.
Timberlake criteria for newly discovered evidence	Hill claims the new alibi evidence would likely yield a different verdict.	State asserts Shaneka’s evidence did not come to Hill’s knowledge post-trial nor meet materiality requirements.	Timberlake requirements not satisfied.
Joiner/actual innocence standard	Hill argues newly discovered evidence shows innocence.	State argues evidence is not direct and positive as to innocence.	Joiner/innocence standard not met; unlikely to change outcome.

Harris v. State, 292 Ga. 92 (Ga. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for extraordinary motions; deference to trial court)
Crowe v. State, 265 Ga. 582 (Ga. 1995) (limited review of successor-judge findings in extraordinary motions)
Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488 (Ga. 1980) (six-factor Timberlake test for newly discovered evidence)
Davis v. State, 283 Ga. 438 (Ga. 2008) (Timberlake threshold requirements apply)
Joiner v. State, 17 Ga. App. 726 (Ga. App. 1916) (actual innocence standard for new trials; direct and positive evidence)
Ford Motor Co. v. Conley, 294 Ga. 530 (Ga. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard; proper legal analysis required)
State v. Pickett, 288 Ga. 674 (Ga. 2011) (governing standards for granting extraordinary motions)
Clements v. State, 289 Ga. 640 (Ga. 2011) (limitations on extraordinary-motions analysis)