Treadaway v. State, 308 Ga. 882

Background

On August 1, 2009, Dora Treadaway struck her husband Randy with a metal broom handle; he was later found naked and unresponsive in a bathtub with multiple recent blunt‑force injuries and signs consistent with drowning.
Randy had severe alcoholism (BAC ≥ 0.4), physical disabilities (missing right‑hand fingers, recently broken feet), and limited mobility; the GBI medical examiner concluded death from drowning and blunt‑force trauma, with alcoholism as a contributing condition.
A Chattooga County grand jury indicted Dora for malice murder, felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault), voluntary manslaughter, and aggravated assault; the jury acquitted malice murder and voluntary manslaughter but convicted felony murder and aggravated assault, the latter merged into the felony murder conviction, and she was sentenced to life.
Dora moved for a new trial (amended through new counsel in 2019); after a hearing the trial court denied the motion in a summary order that the State prepared following an ex parte request from the court. Dora appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
On appeal Dora argued (1) insufficiency of evidence that her unlawful act proximately caused Randy’s death; (2) the summary denial should be vacated/remanded for factual findings because the State drafted the order ex parte; (3) instructional error for refusing her requested proximate‑cause charge and omission of Pattern Charge 2.10.30; and (4) ineffective assistance for not calling a defense forensic expert and not requesting the pattern charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant’s unlawful act proximately caused death	Treadaway argued her blows did not proximately cause Randy’s death and other conditions (alcoholism, high BAC) were the real cause	State argued blunt‑force injuries were recent, consistent with the broom, and directly/materially contributed to drowning	Court: Evidence sufficient; medical examiner tied blunt trauma to impaired ability to escape drowning and to death as contributing cause — felony murder upheld
Summary order denying new trial prepared ex parte by State	Treadaway argued the ex parte drafting and absence of written factual findings deprived appellate review and was fundamentally unfair	State argued trial court reviewed the record, retained discretion, and adoption of a proposed order is permissible	Court: Procedure was troubling but not reversible; presumes trial court exercised discretion and process was not shown to be fundamentally unfair
Jury instructions on proximate causation and omission of Pattern Charge 2.10.30	Treadaway argued the court erred by refusing her requested proximate‑cause phrasing and omitting the pattern charge	State argued the charge as given adequately stated proximate‑cause law	Court: No instructional error — charge as a whole correctly stated law; omission of pattern charge not plain error
Ineffective assistance for not calling a defense forensic pathologist and not requesting pattern charge	Treadaway argued counsel’s strategic choice to rely on cross‑examination (and not request the pattern charge) was unreasonable and prejudiced the defense	State argued counsel reasonably investigated, consulted an independent examiner, vigorously cross‑examined the State expert, and the charge was legally sufficient so no prejudice	Court: No deficient performance shown; counsel’s strategy was reasonable and Treadaway failed to show Strickland prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646 (2010) (felony‑murder requires felonious conduct that proximately causes death)
Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 624 (2018) (when an unlawful injury is the proximate cause of death)
Robinson v. State, 298 Ga. 455 (2016) (elements assessed in the actual circumstances; defendant takes victim as found)
Cordero v. State, 296 Ga. 703 (2015) (the offender takes the victim as found)
Murdock v. State, 299 Ga. 177 (2016) (summary denial of new trial may be sufficient without detailed findings)
Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 647 (2019) (trial court adoption of a party’s proposed order does not alone show lack of discretion)
Fuller v. Fuller, 279 Ga. 805 (2005) (trial court should notify the other party when requesting a proposed order)
Jefferson v. Upton, 560 U.S. 284 (2010) (vacatur warranted where adopted order contained material errors suggesting it was not considered)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)