State v. Wilkins
302 Ga. 156
Ga.2017Background
- Wilkins and Jones were indicted for 2013 double murders; Jones was tried separately and convicted; Wilkins moved in limine to exclude Jones’ out-of-court statements at Wilkins’ pending trial.
- The State sought to admit six categories of incriminating statements by Jones under the co‑conspirator hearsay exception (OCGA § 24-8-801(d)(2)(E)).
- Trial court excluded those statements made outside Wilkins’ presence, concluding they were not made “in furtherance of the conspiracy,” though it reserved ruling on adoptive-admission issues.
- The State appealed the partial exclusion; the key legal question was whether the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy (a requirement in the new Georgia Evidence Code).
- The court reviewed applicable Georgia law, the text of OCGA § 24-8-801(d)(2)(E), and Eleventh Circuit/Federal cases interpreting Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) for guidance on the “in furtherance” requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wilkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Jones’ out-of-court statements under the co-conspirator exception | Statements were made during concealment and furthered the conspiracy (kept co-conspirators united, concealed crime, recruited/assured accomplices) | Statements were retrospective, merely disclosed the crime, or sought to shift blame and therefore did not further the conspiracy | Court affirmed exclusion — statements were not shown to be made "in furtherance"; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Interpretation of OCGA § 24-8-801(d)(2)(E) relative to prior Georgia law | State relied on pre‑Evidence Code decisions holding concealment-phase statements admissible | Wilkins relied on text requiring statements be made “in furtherance” (a stricter showing than mere concealment-phase) | Court applied text: Georgia retains concealment-phase rule but also requires each statement to be in furtherance; federal interpretations aid construction |
| Applicability of federal case law (Eleventh Circuit) in defining "in furtherance" | Federal decisions provide a liberal standard that the State urged the court to apply | Wilkins emphasized limits: retrospective statements, blame-shifting, or mere disclosures are excluded under Eleventh Circuit law | Court adopted Eleventh Circuit framework but found the specific statements fell into categories (retrospective, blame-shifting, disclosures) that are not in furtherance |
| Preservation of the issue given severance of trials | State argued it preserved appellate review despite consenting to severance | Wilkins argued State waived the issue by consenting to severance (Bruton concern) | Court rejected Wilkins’ preservation claim: severance was sought by Wilkins on Bruton grounds; State’s position at that time addressed Bruton, not the co-conspirator exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Hassel v. State, 294 Ga. 834 (cited for prior Georgia rule admitting concealment-phase co-conspirator statements)
- Marchman v. State, 299 Ga. 534 (cited for admissibility of conspirator statements under prior law)
- Franklin v. State, 298 Ga. 636 (cited for scope of co-conspirator admissions under former Code)
- United States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir.) (adopted Eleventh Circuit’s liberal standard for "in furtherance")
- United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971 (discusses that retrospective statements are not "in furtherance")
- United States v. Posner, 764 F.2d 1535 (statements that merely "spill the beans" are not in furtherance)
- City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chem. Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (discusses statements that only disclose activities and do not further a conspiracy)
- United States v. Blakey, 960 F.2d 996 (statements shifting blame or implicating a co-conspirator are not in furtherance)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (establishes Confrontation/Bruton concerns relevant to severance arguments)
- Wright v. State, 300 Ga. 185 (standard: appellate review of motion in limine is for abuse of discretion)
- Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (discusses factual-findings/clear-error standard in evidentiary rulings)
- Favors v. State, 296 Ga. 842 (distinguishes Bruton/severance concerns from co-conspirator hearsay issues)