State v. Holmes
306 Ga. 647
Ga.2019Background
- Holmes was convicted in 2015 of malice murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon for the October 22, 2013 killing of Todd Burkes on a downtown Atlanta pedestrian bridge; the revolver used was never recovered.
- Evidence at trial: Holmes and Burkes were seen together earlier; witnesses had varying accounts that Holmes handled a revolver earlier that night; Burkes’s phone and wallet were missing and Burkes’s phone was used after the shooting to call Colin Hamilton’s number; a witness saw a person in a gray hoodie running from the bridge.
- Holmes was initially granted a new trial by the trial court on two grounds: (1) erroneous exclusion of portions of a recorded statement of Colin Hamilton (unavailable witness) and (2) general grounds (trial judge acting as thirteenth juror).
- This Court’s first decision (State v. Holmes, 304 Ga. 524) vacated the grant as to the evidentiary ground and remanded for proper evidentiary analysis, but affirmed sufficiency of the evidence on cross-appeal. The remand instructed the trial court to reconsider admissibility under the residual hearsay exception and related issues if necessary, and to reconsider the general-grounds ruling under the correct discretionary standard.
- On remand the trial court granted a new trial solely on the general grounds after reviewing conflicts in the evidence, witness credibility and demeanor, and weight of the evidence; the State appealed that grant.
- The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial as the thirteenth juror and that the trial court was not required to relitigate Hamilton’s hearsay statement when granting a new trial solely on general grounds.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Holmes' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had to reconsider admissibility of Hamilton’s statement on remand | Trial court ignored this Court’s direction to reassess admissibility | Trial court could grant new trial on alternate general grounds without relitigating hearsay issue | No; trial court was not required to revisit Hamilton’s statement when it granted the new trial solely on general grounds |
| Whether adoption of a proposed order showed lack of cautious discretion or prejudice | Adoption and quick use of proposed order showed haste/prejudice | Trial court may adopt proposed orders and had presided over trial and prior hearings | No; adoption of defense-proposed order did not demonstrate denial of due process or abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting new trial as thirteenth juror | Grant was a manifest abuse; evidence does not preponderate heavily against the verdict | Trial court properly weighed conflicts, credibility, demeanor, and weight of evidence | No abuse of discretion; affirmed grant of new trial under OCGA § 5-5-20/21 and reviewed standard in OCGA § 5-5-50 |
| Whether remand with directions to follow prior opinion was required | Remand to follow earlier evidentiary directions was necessary | Trial court complied with remit by not repeating prior errors and granting on proper ground | No further remand needed; trial court complied and did not repeat prior errors |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holmes, 304 Ga. 524 (2018) (prior opinion addressing sufficiency and directing remand for proper evidentiary analysis)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard for conviction)
- State v. Hamilton, 299 Ga. 667 (2016) (standards for trial judge acting as thirteenth juror)
- Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707 (2013) (adoption of proposed orders and due process)
- Rafi v. State, 289 Ga. 716 (2011) (discussion of trial court discretion and proposed orders)
- State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90 (2015) (appellate review of new-trial grants on general grounds)
- Wilson v. State, 302 Ga. 106 (2017) (presumption that trial courts properly exercise discretion)
- State v. Harris, 292 Ga. 92 (2012) (review of new-trial exercise of discretion)