Supreme Court of Georgia
Character v. the State; Roberts v. the State
March 9, 2009285 Ga. 112
Summary
The court affirmed both defendants' convictions arising from the nightclub shootings. It held that the challenged victim statements were either non-testimonial and admissible under applicable hearsay exceptions or, for one statement, improperly admitted but harmless; it also rejected the severance and sufficiency claims and deemed several issues procedurally barred. No separate opinions were filed.
Holding
- Sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that Character and Roberts were parties to the charged crimes and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Confrontation Clause challenge to Lovejoy's statements to Tharpe. Lovejoy's statements to Tharpe about the prior robbery were not testimonial and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause.
- Hearsay status and necessity exception for Lovejoy's statements to Tharpe. Although the statements were not admissible as original evidence under OCGA § 24-3-2, the trial court properly admitted them under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule.
- Confrontation Clause challenge to Lovejoy's statement to Neason. Lovejoy's statement at the crime scene was not testimonial, so Neason's testimony about it did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
- Hearsay admissibility of Lovejoy's statement to Neason. The statement was admissible as original evidence under OCGA § 24-3-2 because it was made in Character's presence and could explain Character's motive and conduct; alternatively, it was admissible under the res gestae exception.
- Unpreserved confrontation objection to post-shooting statements. Character's challenge to testimony that people said the defendants had killed someone was procedurally barred because he did not raise a confrontation objection at trial.
Docket S08A2056, S08A2057