A Walton County jury convicted Jeffrey Jay Bunnell of malice murder and tampering with the evidence in connection with the beating death of 70-year-old Margie Eason.
1. The evidence presented at trial shows that Bunnell, who was 46 years old at the time of his arrest, had lived with Eason for approximately seven years and taken care of her in exchange for room and board. Each had purchased a $10,000 to $15,000 life insurance policy that listed the other person as beneficiary. Sometime after 4:00 p.m. on the day Eason died, Bunnell rang the doorbell of their neighbor Roy Huff and asked to borrow five dollars to buy cigarettes. A video surveillance shot shows Bunnell in a nearby
Although Bunnell contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that he was not present when Eason was killed, it is generally the jury’s role to decide whether a hypothesis is reasonable. See Foster v. State,
2. Bunnell contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statement he made to law enforcement officers. Specifically, he alleges that an investigating officer misstated the law during questioning when she told him that “this is your time, your opportunity to tell me what happened .... After tonight you may not get another opportunity to tell me what happened.” Citing State v. Darby,
In this case, the trial court found that Bunnell was read his Miranda rights, signed a form waiving those rights, was alert and coherent in answering questions, was not impaired by alcohol and prescription drugs taken hours earlier, and understood what he was doing when he waived his rights and agreed to talk to officers. The trial court concluded that Bunnell was properly advised of his rights, he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights, and police made no promises or threats to induce him to speak. Unlike the Darby case, where officers erroneously told the defendant that he would have to sign a waiver form before he gave a statement to police, see
3. Bunnell next challenges the admission of hearsay evidence by three witnesses concerning statements that Eason made about her relationship with Bunnell. OCGA § 24-3-1 (b) provides that hearsay evidence “is admitted only in specified cases from necessity.”
The trial court does not abuse its discretion when it uses the necessity exception to admit hearsay testimony that relates an uncontradicted statement made by the unavailable witness to one in whom the declarant placed great confidence and to whom the declarant turned for help with problems.
Myers v. State,
(a) Eason’s daughter, Teresa Thompson, testified about her mother’s recent request to borrow money and statements that her mother had made concerning her relationship with Bunnell. Thompson testified that she and her mother were close despite their “little ins and [outs],” talked or saw each other on a regular basis, and “were always there if we ever needed each other,” and Eason discussed her medical, financial, and other problems with her daughter. Admitting the evidence, the trial court found that it was relevant to the state of the relationship between Eason and Bunnell, more probative of that material fact than other evidence, and was trustworthy because Eason confided in her daughter. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Thompson’s testimony into evidence. See McNaughton,
(b) Marcy Whitlock, who had lived next door to Eason for twenty months and considered her to be “like a grandmother,” testified that two or three times a week Eason would bring up her relationship with Bunnell, saying “numerous times” that he was hateful to her and was “stressing her out.” Whitlock talked with Eason every day, drove her
(c) Huff testified that on the day she died Eason told him that Bunnell wanted money and would beat her up if she did not give him any. Huff considered Eason a close friend and talked to her on the phone nearly every day; she confided in him about health and other personal matters, he had loaned her $600 in September without asking any questions, and he testified that Bunnell never had a kind word for Eason and was “smart with her.” Based on the evidence, Bunnell has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Eason’s statements to Huff bore sufficient indicia of trustworthiness to be admissible. See McPherson v. State,
4. Bunnell contends that the trial court should have granted a mistrial after the State placed his character into evidence. Specifically, he objected when a police officer testified that he ran Bunnell’s “information[ ] through dispatch and ... Mr. Bunnell returned with a DUI suspension.” Finding the testimony was unresponsive to the prosecutor’s question and unrelated to the charges against Bunnell, the trial court offered to give a curative instruction, which Bunnell declined.
Whether to grant a mistrial based on improper character evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Stanley v. State,
5. Finally, Bunnell argues that the post-autopsy photographs should not have been allowed into evidence because they were cumulative and inflammatory. A photograph that depicts the victim after autopsy incisions or after the pathologist changes the state of the body is admissible when “necessary to show some material fact which becomes apparent only because of the autopsy.” Brown v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on October 12,2010. On December 17,2010, the grand jury indicted Bunnell for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence. A jury found him guilty on all four counts on May 11, 2011, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole on the malice murder count and a twelve-month term of imprisonment on the tampering charge; the remaining two counts merged or were vacated by operation of law. Bunnell filed a motion for new trial on June 8, 2011, which was amended on November 22, 2011 and denied on April 4, 2012. He filed a notice of appeal on April 10, 2012. The case was docketed to the Court’s September 2012 term and submitted for decision on the briefs.
This section was repealed under the new Georgia Evidence Code, which took effect on January 1, 2013. The applicable law is now the residual exception under OCGA § 24-8-807. It provides that a statement that is not specifically covered by any law and has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” shall not be excluded if (1) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact, (2) it is more probative on the point than any other