Williams v. the State
332 Ga. App. 546
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Williams was charged with nine drug-related counts arising from three transactions in June/July 2008 and was convicted at trial and again on retrial.
- On a motion in limine, the State sought to exclude cross-examination of Detective Brock about an associated website/publication called Uncle Wiggy’s Secret Guide to Dealing With the Police.
- The trial court granted the motion in limine; Williams appealed, challenging the ruling and other trial conduct.
- The court notes preservation analysis under OCGA 24-1-103 and reviews the ruling de novo on the law to the undisputed facts.
- At issue is whether Brock’s alleged affiliation with Uncle Wiggy’s materials or the Statement “police can and will lie” is probative of truthfulness under OCGA 24-6-608, and whether the cross-examination was properly limited.
- The State’s alternative challenge concerns a fatal variance claim, arguing that the indictment’s reference to a particular 1,000-foot radius housing project did not match trial proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation and standard of review for motion in limine | Williams preserved error via record context; de novo review applies. | State contends no proper offer of proof and standard applies per OCGA. | De novo review; substantial basis supported the ruling. |
| Cross-examination under OCGA 24-6-608 on credibility | Statement in Publication attacked Brock’s credibility. | Statement is not a specific instance of Brock’s conduct and not probative of truthfulness. | Trial court properly barred cross-examination; no admissible specific conduct shown. |
| Fatal variance between indictment and proof re housing-project proximity | Indictment and proof did not establish 1,000 feet from a housing project. | Any variance did not misinform Williams or expose him to double jeopardy. | No fatal variance; sufficient proof and proper argument supported the conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 230 Ga. 839 (1973) (admissibility of confessions obtained by deception)
- Thorpe v. State, 285 Ga. 604 (2009) (admission of a statement despite concealment by a confidante)
- Chambers v. State, 284 Ga. App. 400 (2007) (fatal variance doctrine and materiality rather than technical variance)
- Jackson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 485 (1995) (analysis of fatal variance when indictment and proof differ)
- Hunter v. State, 155 Ga. App. 561 (1980) (example of fatal variance when different business establishments identified)
- Charles v. State, 167 Ga. App. 806 (1983) (fatal variance considerations across multiple addresses)
- State v. Green, 135 Ga. App. 622 (1975) (distinguishes special demurrer context from general variance rules)
- Gaggini v. State, 321 Ga. App. 31 (2013) (guidance on reviewing in limine rulings under new Evidence Code)
- United States v. Quinn, 123 F.3d 1415 (11th Cir. 1997) (no formal offer of proof required to preserve evidentiary objections)