Bolling v. State

16 Citing cases

  1. Leonard v. State

    316 Ga. 827 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the absence of clear authority to support the proposition advanced by the defendant on appeal prevented the finding of plain error

    We review a trial court's ruling admitting or excluding evidence for an abuse of discretion. See Bolling v. State , 300 Ga. 694, 698 (2), 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017). OCGA § 24-8-804 (b) (2) ("Rule 804 (b) (2)"), an exception to the rule excluding hearsay, provides that an out-of-court statement "made by a declarant while believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death" may be admitted in a homicide prosecution where the declarant is unavailable to testify. Georgia Rule 804 (b) (2) is materially identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 804 (b) (2).

  2. State v. Hamilton

    308 Ga. 116 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 19 times
    Affirming trial court's ruling where, although the trial court abused its discretion in admitting former testimony under OCGA § 24-8-804 (b), "that conclusion [did] not end our review ... because after conducting its Rule 804 (b) analysis, the trial court made an alternate holding" that the former testimony was admissible under OCGA § 24-8-807, which was not an abuse of discretion

    Our current Evidence Code's hearsay rules, and specifically Rule 804 (b) (1), govern the admissibility of former testimony—which was presented in the form of transcripts in this case. See OCGA § 24-8-804 (b) (1) ; Bolling v. State , 300 Ga. 694, 698 n.4, 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017) ; see also, e.g., United States v. Gabay , 923 F.2d 1536, 1540-1541 (11th Cir. 1991) ; United States v. Bizzard , 674 F.2d 1382, 1387 (11th Cir. 1982). That rule provides that under certain circumstances, "[t]estimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding" "shall not be excluded by the hearsay rule," but only "if the declarant is unavailable as a witness."

  3. Sanchez v. State

    353 Ga. App. 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)

    1. Sanchez claims that the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s testimony from the first trial when she failed to appear for the second trial. "We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion." Bolling v. State , 300 Ga. 694, 698 (2), 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017) (citation omitted). OCGA § 24-8-804 ("Rule 804") (b) (1) provides, in pertinent part, that:

  4. Welch v. State

    309 Ga. 875 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on grave suspicion, because the court " ‘gave complete instructions on reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence’ " and " ‘[t]he trial evidence raised more than a bare suspicion of [the appellant's] guilt’ "

    It is clear that Lewis became unavailable as a witness after her conversations with Welch despite the State having subpoenaed her to appear at Welch's April 17 trial and the State's efforts to serve her again just prior to the rescheduled June trial. See OCGA § 24-8-804 (a) (5) ("[T]he term ‘unavailable as a witness’ includes situations in which the declarant: .... Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance."); Bolling v. State , 300 Ga. 694, 699 (2) (a), 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017) ("[A] witness is unavailable under [ OCGA § 24-8-804 (a) (5) where that State has] show[n] that reasonable, good-faith efforts to locate the witness were made.") (citation and punctuation omitted). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Lewis's statement to police under OCGA § 24-8-804 (b) (5).

  5. Glover v. State

    309 Ga. 102 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Abney v. State , 306 Ga. 448, 454 (3) (a), 831 S.E.2d 778 (2019) (punctuation omitted). See also Bolling v. State , 300 Ga. 694, 701 (3), 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017) (explaining that, by questioning a witness regarding his plea deal with the State, a defendant "implicitly argue[d]" that the witness had an improper motive to testify and that the witness's prior consistent statements predating the improper motive were therefore admissible to rehabilitate his credibility). Thus, any error in admitting the detective's testimony regarding Miller's prior statements was neither clear nor obvious.

  6. Abney v. State

    306 Ga. 448 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that because detective did not opine on or speak directly to witness's truthfulness, detective's testimony did not constitute improper bolstering of witness's credibility

    Because the prior consistent statements rebutted a charge of improper motive, the trial court did not err in admitting them. See Bolling v. State , 300 Ga. 694, 700-701 (3), 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017) (witness’s statements made before plea offer were admissible to rebut suggestion that witness fabricated his testimony in order to receive benefit of a plea offer). (b) Abney next argues that the trial court erred in allowing the lead detective to introduce prior consistent statements of Washington, the fellow prisoner who testified about Abney’s admission to participating in the crime.

  7. Virger v. State

    305 Ga. 281 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 51 times
    Holding under Rule 622 that evidence of a prior statement by a girlfriend of the defendant to a detective was admissible to show that her testimony, which was beneficial to the defendant, may have been motivated by bias in his favor

    As explained in footnote 1 above, however, Virger was found guilty but was not convicted of or sentenced for that felony murder charge, so his claim regarding it is moot. See Bolling v. State, 300 Ga. 694, 697 n.2, 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017). The State presented evidence that Diarra suffered an aggravated sexual battery near the time Virger inflicted her other injuries.

  8. Moore v. State

    305 Ga. 251 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining that "the trial court ultimately set aside Moore’s conviction on the charge of criminal gang activity … based on its finding that the evidence failed to show the requisite nexus between Moore’s crimes and furtherance of the gang’s interests"

    (Citation omitted.) Bolling v. State , 300 Ga. 694, 698 (2), 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017). The video recordings at issue have not been made part of the record on appeal.

  9. Worthen v. State

    304 Ga. 862 (Ga. 2019)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant's obstruction conviction based upon evidence that, although he was not committing a crime, he ignored the officer's repeated commands that he leave the scene, and was advised that his failure to do so would result in arrest

    Appellant includes the felony murder and aggravated assault charges in his venue enumeration, but he was not convicted of or sentenced for those charges, so his claim regarding them is moot. See Bolling v. State, 300 Ga. 694, 697 n.2, 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017). Appellant does not dispute the proof of venue for his criminal solicitation conviction based on the inmate’s testimony or for the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge to which Appellant pled guilty.

  10. Jones v. State

    304 Ga. 320 (Ga. 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that sufficient evidence established malice murder where the defendant, who had a history of violence toward his girlfriend, shot his girlfriend, initially denied responsibility for the shooting, and then testified at trial that he shot the victim accidentally

    As explained in footnote 1 above, Appellant was found guilty but was not convicted of or sentenced for the felony murder charges and the aggravated assault charge, so his claim regarding those counts is moot. See Bolling v. State, 300 Ga. 694, 697 n.2, 797 S.E.2d 872 (2017).--------