State v. Kenney, 315 Ga. 408

Background

Michael Kenney was indicted for the February 2018 killing of Laquitta Brown; charges included malice murder and related offenses.
Sharrie Dixon, present during the shooting, made out‑of‑court statements to Laquitta’s partner Aisha Brown implicating Kenney; Dixon later died and was unavailable to testify.
The State sought to admit Dixon’s statements at trial; it filed a notice relying on the residual hearsay exception (OCGA § 24‑8‑807).
The trial court held a motion‑in‑limine hearing, reviewed recorded interviews of Aisha and an investigator’s reports, and considered Dixon’s recorded statement to police.
The court concluded the State failed to show the exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness required by Rule 807 and excluded Dixon’s statements; the State appealed.
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, holding the State waived free‑standing Rule 803 arguments and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 807.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kenney)	Held
1. Were Dixon’s statements admissible as present‑sense impressions or excited utterances (OCGA § 24‑8‑803(1),(2))?	Statements described or reacted to events contemporaneously/while under stress and thus fit Rules 803(1)/(2).	Statements were hearsay and not admissible under those exceptions.	State affirmatively waived independent Rule 803 claims at trial; those arguments not reviewed on the merits.
2. Were Dixon’s statements admissible under the residual exception (OCGA § 24‑8‑807)?	Even if not covered by another exception, statements had circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to Rules 803/804 and satisfied Rule 807’s prerequisites.	State failed to show exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness; statements should be excluded.	Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the statements under Rule 807.
3. Did the trial court err by relying on pre‑Code "necessity" cases and applying incorrect legal standards?	Reliance on old necessity‑exception precedents made the court’s analysis improper.	Court applied correct Rule 807 standard overall; any citation error was harmless.	Any citation to former necessity cases was error but harmless because the court applied the correct Rule 807 standard.
4. Did the court clearly err in its factual findings (relationship closeness, intoxication, lineup ID) that supported excluding the statements?	Facts showed Dixon and Aisha were friends/regular houseguests and that other factors favored admission.	The record did not establish a close relationship; Dixon was intoxicated and had difficulty identifying Kenney, undermining trustworthiness.	The court’s factual findings are supported by the record and were not clearly erroneous.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Holmes, 304 Ga. 524 (discussing equivalence of guarantees of trustworthiness for Rule 807)
Rawls v. State, 310 Ga. 209 (Rule 807 requires exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness)
Hickman v. State, 299 Ga. 267 (Rule 807 does not apply to statements already admissible under another exception)
State v. Hamilton, 308 Ga. 116 (advises courts to consider specific exceptions before applying Rule 807 when parties argue alternatives)
Dukes v. State, 311 Ga. 561 (discussing affirmative waiver of appellate claims)
Grier v. State, 313 Ga. 236 (noting Rules 803 exceptions apply regardless of declarant’s availability)
Blackmon v. State, 306 Ga. 90 (residual exception only for statements not covered by other law)
United States v. Two Shields, 497 F.3d 789 (federal treatment of intoxication as a factor in residual‑exception trustworthiness)