"A trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-8-807." Reyes v. State , 309 Ga. 660, 668 (2) (b), 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020). Although the trial court correctly set out these legal principles governing the admission of hearsay statements under the residual exception, the State contends that the court abused its discretion because, in ruling on whether Dixon's statements were admissible under the exception, it improperly relied on Georgia cases applying the former Evidence Code's "necessity exception" to the hearsay rule.

Because the decision not to seek a motion to suppress was not objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, it cannot form the basis of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Thomas v. State, 311 Ga. 280, 286 (2), 857 S.E.2d 223 (2021) (identifying no deficient performance where counsel chose to withdraw a motion to suppress and to "vigorously pursue a self-defense theory at trial and to characterize any evidence at her disposal in any way that could advance that theory"); Reyes v. State, 309 Ga. 660, 671 (3) (a), 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020) (identifying no deficient performance where counsel could reasonably determine that the best defense strategy was to forgo a motion to suppress DNA evidence and offer a plausible explanation for its presence at the crime scene). Thus, Feder’s final claim fails.

Whether an alternative hypothesis is reasonable "is usually a question for the jury, as this Court will not disturb the jury’s finding unless it is insufficient as a matter of law." Reyes v. State, 309 Ga. 660, 664, 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020). [10] Assuming without deciding that the evidence related to the August 9 or 10 crimes was entirely circumstantial, the evidence recounted above was sufficient to authorize the jury to reject as unreasonable Sauder’s alternative hypothesis.

This decision was not objectively unreasonable under the circumstances and therefore cannot form the basis of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Reyes v. State , 309 Ga. 660, 671 (3) (a), 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020) (no deficient performance where counsel could reasonably determine that best defense strategy was to forgo a motion to suppress DNA evidence, welcome its admission, and offer a plausible explanation for its presence at the crime scene); Dent v. State , 303 Ga. 110, 118 (4) (a), 810 S.E.2d 527 (2018) ("[A]t the motion-for-new-trial hearing, trial counsel testified that he wanted the video of the custodial interrogation admitted because, in his opinion, it assisted his client's defense. Thus, this was a strategic decision which has not been shown to be professionally unreasonable."); Gomez v. State , 301 Ga. 445, 459 (6) (a), 801 S.E.2d 847 (2017) (no deficient performance where counsel could reasonably determine that best strategy was to forgo objection to certain testimony and instead use it to challenge the State's theory of the case).

Accordingly, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to admit Williams's statements. See Reyes v. State , 309 Ga. 660, 668 (2) (b), 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020) (no abuse of trial court's discretion in permitting testimony under Rule 807 where the decision was based on a number of factors that weighed in favor of finding declarant's statements to be trustworthy). (b) The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting Williams's statement to Sawyer that Migo owed him money because Lopez did not show that the admission probably affected the outcome of his trial.

To prove deficient performance, Lopez must show that trial counsel performed "in an objectively unreasonable way, considering all of the circumstances and in light of prevailing professional norms." Reyes v. State , 309 Ga. 660, 669 (3), 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020) (citation omitted). "A strong presumption exists that counsel's conduct falls within the broad range of professional conduct."

Finally, "[a] trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-8-807." Reyes v. State, 309 Ga. 660, 668 (2) (b), 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020). [14, 15] Here, the statements contained in the challenged texts provided information regarding the state of Hall’s relationship with Hunt just prior to her death.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Reyes v. State , 309 Ga. 660, 669 (3), 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020). "A strong presumption exists that counsel's conduct falls within the broad range of professional conduct."

A trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether to admit evidence under Rule 807. See Reyes v. State , 309 Ga. 660, 668, 847 S.E.2d 194 (2020). When determining whether statements are sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under Rule 807, the court considers the " ‘circumstances under which [the statements] were originally made’ " rather than the " ‘credibility of the witness reporting them in court.’ "