State v. Simmons
321 Ga. App. 688
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Simmons and Johnson were convicted of two counts of armed robbery after a jury trial.
- Both defendants moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (mobile-phone records) which the trial court granted.
- The State appealed, arguing the evidence was not material and was cumulative.
- Newly discovered records showed Simmons’s phone usage at East Point nightclub between 12:09 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., with additional uses through 3:10 a.m. near College Park.
- Trial testimony linked Simmons and Johnson to the Midtown robbery; the new records and accompanying testimony purportedly corroborated alibi and cast doubt on participation.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of new trials for both defendants, holding the records met the Timberlake test and were not cumulative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality of the records | Simmons/Johnson argue records were not material to verdict. | State contends records do not affect guilt. | Records were material and could have altered the verdict. |
| Cumulative nature of the evidence | New records merely duplicate testimony that Simmons was at East Point. | Records are cumulative of prior alibi witnesses. | Not cumulative; records provide independent, higher-grade corroboration. |
| Timberlake six-factor test | All Timberlake requirements were satisfied by the new evidence. | New evidence fails to meet prerequisites of materiality or non-cumulative effect. | All six requirements satisfied; new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. State, 310 Ga. App. 144 (Ga. App. 2011) (materiality considerations for new-trial motions based on new evidence)
- Bell v. State, 227 Ga. 800 (Ga. 1971) (materiality cannot be reduced to probability; jurors assess credibility)
- Humphrey v. State, 207 Ga. App. 472 (Ga. App. 1993) (non-cumulative evidence not only by scope but by grade)
- Brinson v. State, 288 Ga. 435 (Ga. 2011) (materiality depends on timing and impact on the defense theory)
- Taylor v. State, 307 Ga. App. 487 (Ga. App. 2010) (timeframe and sequence affect materiality and novelty of evidence)
- James v. State, 115 Ga. App. 822 (Ga. App. 1967) (contextual corroboration considerations in new-trial determinations)