Walters v. the State
335 Ga. App. 12
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- At ~4 a.m. Valerie Mike was pumping gas in Savannah when a man approached, asked for a cigarette, pulled a butcher knife, demanded money, and she fled into the store and called 911.
- The store clerk heard Mike scream that someone was trying to rob her and that the man had a knife, and later identified Walters at trial.
- Officer Neff responded, calmed an upset Mike, and testified to Mike’s out-of-court statements to him about the encounter; Neff’s radio broadcast led to discovery of Walters and a knife nearby, and Mike made a show-up identification.
- Walters gave varying statements: to police he claimed self-defense (pulled knife after she reached for something); at trial he claimed he approached for sex and brandished the knife only when concerned Mike might reach for a weapon.
- Defense argued Mike was hysterical and misperceived events; prosecution elicited Neff’s recounting of Mike’s prior consistent statements to rehabilitate her credibility.
- Jury convicted Walters of aggravated assault and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony; on appeal he argued admission of Mike’s prior consistent statements through Neff was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neff could recount Mike’s prior consistent statements | State: admissible to rehabilitate because Mike’s credibility was attacked and her statements were consistent | Walters: no charge of recent fabrication/improper influence was made, so prior consistent statements were inadmissible bolstering | Court: admissible under OCGA § 24-6-613(c) because defense attacked credibility (faulty memory/misperception), and statements logically rebutted that attack; any other parts erroneously admitted were harmless |
| Scope of what kinds of attacks permit prior consistent statements under Georgia law | State: new Evidence Code allows broader admissibility when statement "logically rebuts" credibility attacks | Walters: Georgia law still requires affirmative charge of recent fabrication or improper influence/motive | Court: OCGA § 24-6-613(c) broadened admissibility beyond only recent fabrication/improper influence; federal amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) and advisory notes persuasive guidance |
| Whether any erroneous admission was reversible error | State: admission (if error) harmless given other corroborating evidence and defendant’s inconsistent statements to police | Walters: improper bolstering likely contributed to verdict | Court: any error in admitting remaining portions was harmless — not highly probable it contributed to guilty verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. State, 326 Ga. App. 121 (2014) (prior Georgia decision describing pre-Evidence Code law on prior consistent statements)
- Parker v. State, 162 Ga. App. 271 (1982) (rule against bolstering a witness with prior consistent statements)
- Williams v. State, 292 Ga. 844 (2013) (prior consistent statements admissible only when veracity placed in issue by affirmative charges under earlier law)
- Baugh v. State, 276 Ga. 736 (2003) (holding prior consistent statements inadmissible to bolster absent affirmative charges)
- Tome v. U.S., 513 U.S. 150 (1995) (federal precedent limiting admission of prior consistent statements before amendment)
- Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333 (2013) (standard for harmlessness review of nonconstitutional evidentiary error)