Strother v. State
305 Ga. 838
Ga.2019Background
- On Dec. 21, 2015 Cristobal Becerre-Contreras was lured by Kelesha Dorsey to a house where Kyle Strother (aka “Droop”) and Delaney Ray ambushed him; he was beaten and shot in the back of the head and died.
- Dorsey and Ray initially denied knowledge but later, in recorded statements and at trial, identified Strother as the shooter and described a plan Strother devised to rob Becerre-Contreras.
- Corroborating evidence: text messages between Dorsey and the victim, surveillance video placing Strother and Ray together that night, physical evidence (no shell casings consistent with a revolver), recorded post-shooting texts Strother sent about concealing involvement, and payments to Dorsey/Ray from victim’s wallet.
- Strother was convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, aggravated battery, and a firearms offense; sentenced to life without parole for malice murder and other concurrent/consecutive terms; he timely moved for a new trial and appealed.
- At trial the State played recorded police interviews in which Dorsey and Ray said Strother was a Bloods member and Ray said she’d heard he boasted of other murders; Strother contended those statements were irrelevant, 404(b)-barred, and highly prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Strother’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence was insufficient to prove Strother committed the crimes | Recorded IDs, texts, surveillance, post-shooting conduct and flight proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — evidence sufficient (Jackson standard) |
| Whether trial court failed as the “thirteenth juror” in denying new trial (OCGA §§ 5-5-20, 5-5-21) | Judge did not properly reassess credibility/weight as required | Trial court properly exercised discretion and found evidence supported verdict | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; appellate court will not substitute its judgment |
| Admission of gang/other-murder statements from Dorsey/Ray (relevance / OCGA § 24-4-404(b) / § 24-4-403) | Statements were irrelevant, character evidence barred by 404(b), and unduly prejudicial under 403; State failed to give 404(b) notice | Defense opened the door by eliciting testimony about whom witnesses feared; statements were admissible rebuttal and not used to prove propensity; limited prejudice | Affirmed — statements became relevant to rebut defense theory; not excluded under 404(b) or 403; no plain error |
| Ineffective assistance for trial counsel “opening the door” to those statements | Counsel’s strategy was deficient and caused admission of prejudicial evidence affecting outcome | Trial strategy was reasonable and any opening did not change overwhelmingly strong case for State | Affirmed — no Strickland prejudice shown |
| Alleged false testimony by Dorsey about plea deal (Brady/Napue) | Dorsey later claimed she was promised a plea and was instructed to lie, so State suppressed/used false testimony | Prosecutors denied any pretrial plea offer; trial court found no pretrial agreement and Dorsey changed story post-trial hoping for leniency | Affirmed — trial court’s finding that no pretrial deal or knowing false testimony exists is supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- White v. State, 293 Ga. 523 (trial judge’s role as thirteenth juror)
- Parks v. State, 300 Ga. 303 (when defense opens door, prior convictions/evidence may become relevant)
- Kirby v. State, 304 Ga. 472 (looking to federal rule interpretations for OCGA § 24-4-404(b))
- Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813 (presumption that trial judge properly exercised discretion as thirteenth juror)
- Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601 (admission of other-crimes evidence to counter defense theory)
- Anglin v. State, 302 Ga. 333 (Rule 403 balancing and deference to admissibility)
- Jones v. State, 302 Ga. 892 (Strickland prejudice analysis in context of opened-door evidence)
- Dennard v. State, 305 Ga. 463 (harmlessness where evidence of guilt is overwhelming)
- United States v. West, 898 F.2d 1493 (Eleventh Circuit: inadmissible extrinsic evidence may be admitted on redirect if defense opened door)
- United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F.2d 717 (Eleventh Circuit Rule 403 admissibility guidance)