Miller v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kenney

    315 Ga. 408 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 2 times
    Noting that "we ordinarily review forfeited evidentiary arguments for plain error"

    771, 786 (3) (b), 865 S.E.2d 150 (2021) (circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness existed under Rule 807 based on a "long and close friendship," where the witness was the declarant's "lifelong" and "best" friend, and "[t]he pair talked to each other daily and shared the personal details of their lives with each other"); Rawls , 310 Ga. at 214-215 (3) (a) (i), 850 S.E.2d 90 (concluding that the declarant's "close relationship with each of the[ ] witnesses gave [the declarant's] statements ... sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible under Rule 807," where the witnesses were the declarant's "best friend[ ]," cousin, and sister, and the declarant and witnesses "often confided" in each other); Reyes , 309 Ga. at 668 (2) (b), 847 S.E.2d 194 (statements were adequately trustworthy under Rule 807 where the declarant and witness "had a close relationship in which they regularly shared with each other what was happening in their lives"); Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) ("statement made to a close personal friend" was sufficiently trustworthy under Rule 807 where the witness and declarant "had known [each other] for three decades" and "maintained a close relationship"); Smart v. State , 299 Ga. 414, 422 (3), 788 S.E.2d 442 (2016) ("We cannot say that statements from a wife to her friends or family, or her own writings, which describe acts of domestic violence, do not, in fact, bear an increased level of trustworthiness [for purposes of Rule 807 ]."). Further, the State's argument that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Aisha and Dixon were "passing acquaintance[s]" is misguided.

  2. Carter v. State

    315 Ga. 214 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 5 times

    "Whether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (emphasis in original). Such guarantees of trustworthiness "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" as "[t]hese categories of hearsay have attributes of trustworthiness not possessed by the general run of hearsay statements that tip the balance in favor of introducing the information if the declarant is unavailable to testify." Jacobs v. State , 303 Ga. 245, 249 (2), 811 S.E.2d 372 (2018) (citations and punctuation omitted).

  3. Emmons v. Bryant

    864 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Given Hudgins’ unavailability to testify and the evidence of her close relationship with Barker, we agree with this ruling. See Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5-6 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (deceased victim's statement to close friend was sufficiently probative and trustworthy to be admissible under the residual exception). Contrary to the habeas court's suggestion, the Confrontation Clause would have had no relevance to Barker's testimony, insofar as Hudgins’ statements to her close friend were not "testimonial."

  4. Lopez v. State

    311 Ga. 269 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    Statements are considered sufficiently trustworthy "not because of the credibility of the witness reporting them in court, but because of the circumstances under which they were originally made." Id. (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) ("Whether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." (emphasis in original)).

  5. Rawls v. State

    310 Ga. 209 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that testimony about the defendant's prior violent acts against his girlfriend showed "the nature of the relationship between [the defendant] and the victim shed light on [the defendant]’s motive in committing the offenses charged" (citation and punctuation omitted)

    The trial court overruled those objections, and we review those rulings for an abuse of discretion. See Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 4, 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018). Because Appellant did not object to Barnes's or Ramos's prior-difficulties testimony based on Rule 403 and did not object to Paschal's or Anthony's prior-difficulties testimony at all, we review those claims only for plain error.

  6. Davenport v. State

    309 Ga. 385 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony where "[i]nvestigators … found gunshot primer residue on [the defendant’s] clothes," the defendant "gave inconsistent stories to police, and he had a history of physical violence and threats toward [the victim]"

    "Whether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (emphasis in original). "A trial court's decision to admit hearsay evidence under Rule 807 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."

  7. Winston v. State

    814 S.E.2d 408 (Ga. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that the evidence was sufficient under Jackson and OCGA § 24-14-6, where "the evidence showed appellant was the last person known to be with the victim at the time the killing took place"

    OCGA § 24–14–6. See also Miller v. State, 303 Ga. 1, 3 (1), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018). Questions about the reasonableness of other hypotheses in cases based on circumstantial evidence are for the trier of fact to decide.

  8. Hall v. State

    901 S.E.2d 743 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)

    In simpler terms, "[w]hether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." Miller v. State, 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (emphasis omitted). Finally, "[a] trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-8-807."

  9. Brooks v. State

    365 Ga. App. 711 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 5 times

    "Whether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (emphasis omitted). We review a trial court's decision to admit hearsay evidence under Rule 807 for an abuse of discretion.