State v. Stephens
310 Ga. 57
Ga.2020Background
- Christopher Starks was killed on August 27, 2015, at Savannah State University; several eyewitnesses identified Justin Devon Stephens as the shooter and described the weapon as a large, black handgun (one witness said .40–.45 caliber).
- At Stephens’s first trial (July 2019) the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared; during that trial the State sought to introduce two photographs: Exhibit 1 (Stephens holding a gun) and Exhibit 2 (Stephens’s girlfriend pointing a handgun at the camera while Stephens sits behind her holding a silver object the State characterizes as a gun magazine).
- The trial court excluded Exhibit 2 as irrelevant (noting Stephens is not holding the gun, no proof of when the photo was taken, no link between the pictured firearm and the murder weapon, and uncertainty whether the silver object is a magazine); the court reserved ruling on Exhibit 1.
- The State obtained a superseding indictment and filed a pretrial motion to admit Exhibits 1 and 2 at the second trial, arguing the photos matched witness descriptions and showed Stephens had access to a large black pistol other than a .22 he allegedly owned.
- On pretrial appeal under OCGA § 5-7-1, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of Exhibit 2, holding the photograph required an impermissibly attenuated chain of inferences to be relevant; the Court declined to address other arguments not raised below or not proper in this pretrial appeal.
- Justice Melton (joined by two justices) dissented in part, arguing Exhibit 2 was relevant under the broad Rule 401 standard and that any doubts about strength of inference should be addressed under Rule 403 balancing, not by finding no relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stephens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibit 2 is relevant under OCGA § 24-4-401 | Photo matches witness descriptions and, with Exhibit 1, shows Stephens had access to a large black pistol | Photo is irrelevant and impermissible character evidence; no link to murder weapon | Exclusion affirmed — photo was not relevant because it required a chain of attenuated inferences |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in excluding Exhibit 2 under Rules 401/403 | Any tendency to show access is enough; probative value outweighs prejudice | Even if marginally probative, risk of unfair prejudice and confusion | No abuse of discretion; court may exclude evidence when connection to consequential fact is too tenuous |
| Whether the court may consider trial-court remarks and first-trial events in this pretrial appeal | State argued prior remarks and strategic effects matter | Defense objected; procedural limitations apply | Not considered — State’s additional arguments were outside scope of pretrial appeal and/or not raised below |
| Whether Exhibit 1 affects relevance of Exhibit 2 | Exhibit 1 (Stephens holding gun) makes Exhibit 2 more probative of access over time | Photo 2 still fails to link to murder weapon and timing is unknown | Court reserved ruling on Exhibit 1 but held Exhibit 1 did not cure Exhibit 2’s relevance defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Derrico v. State, 306 Ga. 634 (2019) (relevance determinations lie within trial court discretion)
- Jones v. State, 305 Ga. 750 (2019) (no abuse excluding irrelevant evidence)
- State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156 (2015) (Rule 401 has a liberal standard, but not without boundaries)
- Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (2016) (distinguishing relevance from probative value; factors for Rule 403 balancing)
- Kirby v. State, 304 Ga. 472 (2018) (Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly)
- Plez v. State, 300 Ga. 505 (2017) (403 balancing is principally committed to trial courts)
- United States v. Hurn, 368 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2004) (chain of inferences can be too attenuated to establish relevance)
- United States v. Reagan, 725 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2013) (connection between evidence and purpose may be too tenuous)
- United States v. Sellers, 906 F.2d 597 (11th Cir. 1990) (tenuous relevance may be outweighed by unfair prejudice)
- Turner v. State, 299 Ga. 720 (2016) (appellate courts won’t consider issues not raised below)
