THE STATE v. HOLMES; and vice versa.
S18A0851, S18X0852
Supreme Court of Georgia
October 9, 2018
304 Ga. 524
FINAL COPY
In June 2015, cross-appellant Quantravious Antwan Holmes was convicted of malice murder and other offenses arising out of the shooting death of his friend Todd Burkes.1 The trial court granted Holmes’ motion for new trial on two grounds: on the ground that the court had erred by denying Holmes
permission to enter into evidence portions of the recorded and transcribed statement of a person named Hamilton, who was not available to appear as a witness at trial; and on the general grounds as the “thirteenth juror.” The State filed its notice of appeal from the order granting the motion for new trial, and Holmes was permitted to file an out-of-time notice of cross-appeal asserting insufficiency of the evidence to convict.
For the reasons that follow, we reject Holmes’ assertion that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction. We also vacate in part the trial court‘s order granting a new trial and remand the case to
Holmes’ Cross-Appeal, Case No. S18X0852
1. Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence
The evidence construed in a light most favorable to upholding the jury‘s verdict shows as follows. The murder occurred on a pedestrian bridge in downtown Atlanta at approximately 3:30 a.m. on October 22, 2013. Earlier in the evening, Holmes and Burkes were seen handling a “western style” revolver. They were seen together near the Greyhound Bus terminal, and Holmes was wearing a dark-colored hoodie with white stripes and a large white logo design on the front. A witness who knew both Holmes and the victim told investigators that they were arguing over a woman they were both interested in dating. At trial, the witness denied the men were arguing or that she saw them with a pistol. She explained that she made these statements to the investigators in hopes of pleasing the police since she was facing a criminal charge. A second witness, who was a convicted felon, testified he saw Holmes and the victim arguing earlier in the day and that he also saw them passing around a revolver.
The two men were also seen in the early morning hours at a restaurant near the Five Points MARTA station, and contradictory evidence was presented about whether they were still arguing. They were last seen together at the entrance to the pedestrian bridge. Burkes’ body was discovered on the bridge with several gunshot wounds that appeared to have been fired from a revolver that was never recovered. Also, Burkes’ phone and wallet were missing. A resident of a nearby third-floor condo heard shots fired around 3:30 a.m. and then saw a person wearing a gray hoodie running away from the direction of the bridge. That witness could not identify the person, however, and did not notice any distinguishing markings on the hoodie. After the shooting, Holmes left Atlanta for New York.
Cross-appellant Holmes argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction.
Relying upon Moore v. State,2 Holmes argues that mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even when the evidence establishes a motive and the defendant flees the state after the crime. The evidence in this case establishes more than mere presence and motive, however, in that evidence was presented from which the jury could find Holmes was in possession of a weapon hours before the shooting that was similar to the type of gun from which the fatal bullet was fired. Additionally, a person dressed similarly to Holmes was seen fleeing
reasonable doubt, the jury‘s verdict will be upheld. Johnson v. State, 296 Ga. 504, 505 (1) (769 SE2d 87) (2015).
We conclude the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Holmes guilty beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia.3 Accord Robbins v. State, 269 Ga. 500 (499 SE2d 323) (1998) (holding the evidence was legally sufficient to support a murder conviction in a case in which the defendant and victim had previously fought over a woman and the defendant was observed carrying a gun similar to the one used in the murder even though no murder weapon was found). We therefore affirm the portion of the trial court‘s order ruling that the evidence was sufficient.
State‘s Appeal, Case No. S18A0851
2. Grant of New Trial on the Trial Court‘s Conclusion It Committed Evidentiary Error
One of the State‘s assertions on appeal is that the trial court erred in granting the motion for new trial based on its conclusion that it wrongly denied Holmes permission to introduce a portion of the statement made by Hamilton and required Holmes, instead, to introduce all or none of that statement. Because the trial court did not properly apply the rules of evidence to its
analysis of this issue, we vacate the order granting a new trial on this ground and remand for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.
(a) Information gleaned from Burkes’ phone records showed the phone was still being used at the time that information was gathered, and had been used at a location at or near the crime scene shortly after the time of the shooting. The records led the police to Colin Hamilton, who told an investigator in an interview two weeks after the shooting that he found Burkes’ body and took the cell phone from next to it because the phone belonged to him. Hamilton said the phone was stolen from him on the night of the murder by two men, and he described their clothing and appearance. Hamilton stated one man was holding a revolver and was wearing a gray hoodie, while the other man was wearing clothing that matched the victim‘s clothing. Hamilton could not identify Holmes when given a photo lineup that included Holmes’ picture. Hamilton was unavailable for trial, and the State filed a pre-trial motion seeking to exclude the admission of Hamilton‘s statement on hearsay grounds. Holmes sought to introduce certain portions of Hamilton‘s statement, arguing it was admissible under the “necessity” exception to the hearsay rule.4 Holmes
wanted to introduce that portion of the statement in which Hamilton stated he found his own phone on the bridge near the victim‘s body, which had been taken from him in a robbery, but Holmes did not want to introduce other portions in which Hamilton stated he was robbed by the victim and a person wearing a gray hoodie or that he had seen the victim and that other person walk onto the pedestrian bridge just two minutes before hearing gunshots. Holmes argued that the portion of Hamilton‘s statement that he picked up the phone next to a dead body was reliable hearsay because it was an admission against Hamilton‘s interest since it showed he had motive and opportunity to be involved in the victim‘s shooting. But because the trial court ruled that the defense would be required to enter Hamilton‘s statement in its entirety, Holmes did not present the statement to the jury.
means, even though the State knew, but the jury did not, that Hamilton stated he took the phone from the crime scene. In its order granting Holmes’ motion for a new trial, the trial court concluded it had erred in its evidentiary ruling regarding the admissibility of Hamilton‘s statement in that Holmes should have been permitted to introduce a portion of the statement under the residual exception to hearsay, and that Holmes should not have been required to introduce the entire statement, including the portions that would have been prejudicial to him. The State appeals this ruling.
Rule 807 of Georgia‘s Evidence Code,
A statement not specifically covered by any law but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness shall not be excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that: (1) The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (2) The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (3) The general purposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence....
Rule 807 is borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence and is not a rule that was carried over from Georgia‘s former Evidence Code. Jacobs v. State, 303 Ga. 245, 249 (2) (811 SE2d 372) (2018). When Georgia courts consider the
meaning of provisions borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence, they are guided by the “decisions of the federal appeals courts construing and applying the Federal Rules, especially the decisions of the Eleventh Circuit.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. A trial court‘s decision to admit hearsay evidence under Rule 807 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Tanner v. State, 301 Ga. 852, 856 (1) (804 SE2d 377) (2017) (citing Rivers v. United States, 777 F3d 1306, 1312 (II) (11th Cir. 2015)). This Court is “particularly hesitant to overturn a trial court‘s admissibility ruling under the residual hearsay exception absent a definite and firm conviction that the court made a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached based upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Thompson v. State, 302 Ga. 533, 544 (IV) (807 SE2d 899) (2017). These factors include a consideration of the trustworthiness of the original declarant, given the circumstances in which they were first made, and whether guarantees of trustworthiness exist
that are equivalent in significance to the specific hearsay exceptions enumerated in Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804. Therefore, such guarantees must be equivalent to cross-examined former testimony, statements under a belief of impending death, statements against interest, and statements of personal or family history.
(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Rivers v. United States, supra, 777 F3d at 1314 (II) (A). Quoting Rivers, this Court has stated the residual hearsay exception should be used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances. See Jacobs v. State, supra, 303 Ga. at 249 (2).
It is clear in this case that the trial court did not properly apply Rule 807 because in analyzing whether Hamilton‘s statement to the police had sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, in its ruling on the motion for new trial it relied primarily upon cases decided under Georgia‘s former Evidence Code, which are no longer applicable. The trial court concluded Hamilton‘s statement to the police officer was reliable and admissible under the residual exception without considering whether this was an exceptional circumstance in which the guarantees of trustworthiness were the equivalent to those found in the other statutory exceptions to
whether, as Holmes urges, Hamilton‘s statement was admissible under the residual exception to hearsay.
(b) At trial, the court ruled that the entirety of Hamilton‘s statement would have to be admitted if Holmes sought to admit any part of it. In the order granting new trial, however, the court concluded it had erred at trial because the “rule of completeness”6 does not require the entirety of Hamilton‘s statement to be admitted. It reasoned that Hamilton‘s statement about hearing gunshots immediately after seeing Holmes and Burkes going onto the bridge was a separate statement that was not relevant to the issue raised by Hamilton‘s statement that he took the phone from the crime scene when he found Burkes’ body on the bridge. On appeal, the State asserts that to permit one part, but not the entirety, of Hamilton‘s statement to be introduced on retrial, if one is conducted, would improperly hide the truth rather than reveal the truth.
The rule of completeness,
3. Grant of New Trial on the General Grounds
In its order granting Holmes’ motion for new trial, the trial court also granted a new trial under the general grounds as the “thirteenth juror.” The
order recited that the decision to grant a new trial on the general grounds was based, in part, upon the trial court‘s conclusion that evidence had been erroneously excluded.
The judge presiding over the trial of a case may grant a new trial “when the verdict of a jury is found contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity . . . .”
there has been a clear abuse of the trial court‘s substantial discretion. See State v. Hamilton, 299 Ga. 667, 670-671 (2) (791 SE2d 51) (2016). A trial court, however, does not properly exercise its discretion when it applies an improper legal standard of review, as opposed to its own discretion as the thirteenth juror, to the general grounds for new trial.
Here, the order granting Holmes’ motion for new trial on the general grounds as the “thirteenth juror” recites that it was made after considering the conflicts in the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence. But it also cites as a ground for granting the motion on the general grounds the evidentiary error the court concluded it made at trial with respect to excluding Hamilton‘s statements to the investigator unless all, and not just a portion, of the statement was admitted. Because this legal ground for granting the motion does not comply with
Judgment affirmed in Case No. S18X0852. Judgment vacated in Case No. S18A0851, and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur.
Decided October 9, 2018.
Murder. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Goger.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Lyndsey H. Rudder, Marc A. Mallon, Assistant District Attorneys; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Suzanne M. Tevis, Tamara N. Crawford, for appellee.