Ru ss el l was in di ct e d b y a DeKalb Co un ty gran d ju ry in Ju ly 200 8 o n t wo 1 counts o f m alice m

urder, two counts o f felony m urder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count o f third degree c hild cruelty
. Russell was re -indicted in May 2009 on the sam e counts and was tried July 13 throug h 17, 2009
. The j ury convicted Ru sse ll on all co unt s, an d th e tr ia l c ourt t he re af te r se nte nc ed

him to tw o c onse cu tiv e te rm s of li fe im pr iso nm en t onthe m al ic e m ur de r co unt s an d a co nse cu tiv e 12- m ont h te rm on the c hil d c ru el ty co un t; the r em ai nin g c ount s m er ge d or sto od v ac at ed

by ope ratio n of

la w . O n S ep te m

be r 4, 200 9, Ru sse ll fi le d ati m el y m oti on f or ne w tr ia l, which w as denied on August 28, 2013. Rus sell filed a notice of ap peal on Septem ber 13, 2013. The appeal wa s docketed to t h e Ap ri l 2014 term of this Court and was the re af te r subm itt ed

f or de ci sio n on the br ie fs
. In the Suprem e Court of Ge orgia

D e c id e d: O c to be r 2 0, 201 4

S1 4A 07 95 . RUSS ELL v. THE STATE.
HUNS TEIN, Ju st ice. A ppe ll a ntD e m e tr iu s R

uss e ll w a s c onvi c te d of

tw o c ount s of

m urd e r and
re la te d of

fe nse s i n c onne c ti on w ith t he Jun e 22, 200 8 sh oot in g deaths o f V ic t o r i a R e n f r o e an dA n d r e a

S m i t h
. R

u s s e l l n o w c h a l l e n g e s h i s c o n v i c ti ons , conte nding that t h e ev i denc e wa s insufficie nt and tha t the tria l c ourt erre d in de c l i n i n g t o i n s t r

u c tt h e j u ryo n v o l u n t a rym a n s l au g h t e r an di n v a r i ous
ev i d en t i ar y ru l i n g s . F i n d i n g n o er r o r , w e af f i r m. 1 Con st ru ed in th e lig ht m os t fav or abl e to th e jur y’s ver di cts, th e evid ence2

a dduc e d a t tri a l e st a

bl is he d a s f

ol lo w s. A t a

ppr oxi m a te ly

5: 00 a
. m . on J une 22, 2008 , Vic to ri a

R e nfr oe and A ndr e a

Sm ith w e re sho t a

nd k il le d a t R e nfr oe ’s hom e on E a stw ood Dr iv e in D e K a lb C ounty , w he re th e tw o w om e n w e re li vi ng wit h t hei r yo un g chil dr en. Renf ro e’s n ext do orneig hb or , who at th at time was in his driveway prep ar i n g to le ave for work, he ard nine gunsh ots and fe m al e
sc re a m s f rom th e hom e and the n ob se rve d a m a n r un o utof th e fr ont doo r o f the hous e hol di ng a

gun . T he ne ig hbor

c a ll e d 91 1, and re spo ndi ng o ff ic e rs fo und th e vi c ti m s: Sm it

h ha d be e n sh ot dead wh ile ly in g on a li vi ng r oom

sof a , and R e nfr oe ha d be e n sh otde a d l y in g in a be d. T he re w e re no s ig ns o f f orc e d e nt ry in to th e ho m e. A ppe ll a ntD e m e tr iu s R

uss e ll w a s R e nfr oe ’s estr ange d hu sband. A t the tim e of the shooting, the couple we re separat ed, and Re nfroe wa s a ct ively pu rs ui ng a div or ce. Tri al t es timon y establ is hed th at Rus sell had been at R e nfr oe ’s hom e inth e hour s be for e th e e a rl y m orn in g sho ot in g. N a ta sha C a to , a c lo se fr ie nd o f R e nfr oe , te st if ie d t ha t, a t a

ppr oxi m a te ly 6: 00 p. m . on the ni ght be for e th e sho ot in g, R e nfr oe pi c ke d he r up at w ork w ith R uss e ll inth e c a r and dr ov e them all to the Eastwo od Dri ve ho us e. Cato event ual ly left th e ho m e that
even in g, b ut sh e sp ok e by ph on e with Renf ro e at appr o x i ma t ely 2: 00 a.m .,3

dur in g w hi c h sh e ove rhe a rd R uss e ll and R e nfro e ye ll in g a t o ne anothe r and a door sl a m m in g. Sm ith’s ol de st

son , A nj uan, w ho was 12 ye a rs ol d a t the ti m e of th e sho ot in g, te st if

ie d t ha t on th e m orn in g of Jun e 22, 200 8 he aw oke to gun sho ts , c a m e out of hi s r oom, an d saw Russ e ll ru n ou t o f the hou se . O ne of Sm ith’s da ught e rs , se ve n-y e a r- ol d Ari y a nna C a to , te st if ie d tha t she he a rd guns hot s and
saw a m an ru n ou t th e fro nt do orof th e ho us e with a gu n. S he tes tif iedfu rt her t h at th e sh oo ter was wearin g r ed and whi te Nik e sh oes , whi ch s he r ecog ni zed
a s R uss e ll ’s
. Furth e r tr ia l te st im ony c onf irm e d t ha t R

uss e ll ha d be e n w e a ri ng
re d and w hi te N ik e sho e s in th e hour s be for e th e sho ot in g, a nd a pol ic e de te c ti ve te st if ie d t ha t R uss e ll w a s w e a ri ng r e d, w hi te , and b la c k N ik e te nni s s hoe s a t the ti m e of hi s qu e st io ni ng and ev entua l a rr e st , w hi c h t ook pl a c e inth e a ft e rno on on the dayof

th e sho ot in g. In a state m ent t o police , R u s s el l cl ai m ed he had be en at the hom e of his gi rl fr ie nd Shant ri c ia A nde rs on fr om 11: 30 p. m . on Jun e 21 unt il 6: 00 a
. m . th e fol lo w in g m orn in g. C e ll pho ne re c ord s i ndi c a te d, how e ve r, th a t a ll a c ti vi ty on R uss e ll ’s pho ne taki ng pl a c e dur in g th a t ti m e pe ri od, in c lu di ng a tr a nsm is si on
a t 5 :0 1 a
. m . , ha d be e n t ransm it te d t hro ugh th e c e ll to w e r c lo se st to th e vi c ti m s’4

ho m e, rath er th an th ro ug h t he cell to wer clo ses t to And erso n’ s h ome. Evi den ce of p ri ordi ff

icu lti es b etween Renf

ro e and Ru ss ell was ad du ced fr om MA R T A pol ic e of

fi c e r R a ndol ph Wil born, w ho t e st if ie d t ha t i n Fe bru a ry 2002 , he w itne ss e d R

uss e ll hol di ng R e nfroe in a c hoke hol d w ith hi s ha

nds
a rou nd h e r n e c k; on Wilb orn ’s or de r f or hi m to st op, R

uss e ll sho ve d R e nfr oe again st a wall. N atash a Cato als o t esti fi ed th at on on e occasio n i n Decem ber 20 07 , sh e had ob serv ed Russ ell grab Renf ro e by the arms, jerk her , and th reaten to ki ll he r. C e ll pho ne re c ord s r e fl e c te d t ha t R uss e ll ha d se nt A nde rs on va ri ous te xt
m e ss a ge s on th e m orn in g of th e sho ot in g: a 5: 17 a . m . te xt re a d, “O va ur hou se si nce 12 ”; an 8 :1 8 a.m. tex t read , “I left urho us e bo ut 6 walk in ho m e cuz I had
no m on ey”; an 11 :2 3 a.m. tex t read , “I had on whi te T N bl ack sh or ts .”

1. The evi den ce a s s umm arizedabo ve was s uf fi cient to enabl e a ratio nal tr ie r o f fa c t to c onc lu de be y ond a re a son a bl e doub t tha t R

uss e ll w a s gu il ty

of th e crimes of wh ich he was con vi cted. Jacks on v. Vir gi ni a, 4 43 U. S. 3 07 (9 9 S Ct 2781 , 61 L E 2d 560) (19 79)
. A nj uan Sm ith ide nt if ie d Rus se ll a s the m a n w ho
ran f rom th e hom e imm e di a te ly a ft e r the sho ts w e re fi re d, and thi s i de nt if ic a ti on5

was cor ro bo rated by Ar iyann a, who recog ni zed th e sh oes th e sh oo ter was
w e a ri ng a s thos e be lo ngi ng to R uss e ll
. T he e vi de nc e e st a bl is he d bo th a

m ot iv e
a nd an op portu ni ty

fo r R uss e ll to c omm it

th e m urd e rs . Mo re ove r, R

uss e ll ’s te xt
m e ss a ge s are re fl e c ti ve of a n e ff ort to fa bri c a te an a li bi , w hi c h w a s de bunk e d by th e ce ll p ho ne r ecord s in di catin g Rus sell ’s lik ely p resen ce at Renf ro e’s h ome,
ra th e r than A nde rs on’ s, inth e hou rs and m in ut e s l e adi ng up to the sho ot in g. T he e vi de nc e w a s c le a rl ysuf fi c ie ntto sup port R

uss e ll ’s c onvi c ti ons . 2. R uss e ll c ont e nds th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in re fus in g hi s r e que st to gi ve a jur y ins truct io n o n v ol un tary mans lau gh ter. Wh en in st ru ctin g t he ju ry in a m ur der case, a tr ial co ur t is req ui red to gr ant th e defen dan t' s r equ est f ora charg e on th e l ess er in clu ded of fen se of vo lu nt ary m ans lau gh ter i f th ere is an y evid ence, ho wever sl ig ht , to su pport s uc h a c harge . [C it
. ] Wh e th e r s uc h sl ig ht e vi de nc e e xi st s i s a que st io n of la w . [C it
. ] T he c ri m e of

vol unt a ry m a nsl aught e r i s c omm it te d whe n one ki ll s “ sol e ly a s t he re sul t o f a sud de n, vi ol e nt , and i rr e si st ib le pa ss io n r e sul ti ng f rom se ri ous provo cation sufficie nt to exc ite such passion i n a r easonable per so n.” OCGA § 16 –5 –2 (a). B lake v. St a te , 292 G a . 516, 518 (3) (7 39 S E 2d 3 19) (2 013)
. H e re , w e c onc lu de th a t the tr ia l c ourt p rop e rl yde c li ne d to in st ru ct th e ju ryon v ol unt a ry
m a nsl aught e r b e c ause th e re w a s no e vi de nc e to sup port s uc h a c harge . T houg h th e re w a s e vi de nc e of

ong oi ng m a ri ta l di ff

ic ul ti e s be tw e e n R

uss e ll and R e nfr oe6

a nd p a st a c ts of vi ol e nc e c omm it te d by

R uss e ll a ga in st

R e nfr oe , th e re w a s no evi den ce of an y sp ecific p ro vo catio n at o r aro un d t he ti m e of th e mur der s s uch
a s w oul d ge ne ra te th e “s udde n . . . a nd ir re si st ib le pa ss io n” ne c e ss a ryto sup port
a conv icti on fo r v ol un tary mans lau gh ter. S ee , e.g., Culmer v . St ate, 28 2 Ga. 33 0, 3 35 (4 ) (6 47 SE2 d 30 ) (2 00 7) (ev en evi den ce o f th e vict im’s ad ul tery d oes not sup port a

vol unt a rym a nsl aught e r c harge if th e re is no e vi de nc e th a t the defe ndant le arne d of the c ondu ct imm ediate lypri o r t o t h e killing so as to in fl am e a “s ud den ” pas si on in th e defen dan t) . The m ere fact th at th e coup le was hea rd a r gu i ng a

pp r ox i m a t e l yt hr e e h ou r s p r i or t o t he s ho ot i ng i s n ot

itse lf suf fi c ie ntto sup port a

n in struc ti on on vol unt a ry m a nsl aught e r. Se e , e . g. , Mo ore
v. St a te , S14 A 0988 , sl ip op. a t 1 3 ( 4), 201 4 W L 466 4069 (d e c id e d Se pt
. 22, 2014 ) (fighting prio r to a hom ic ide doe s not ordin ari ly constitute the re quisite pro voc a ti on to suppo rt a c harge on v ol unt a rym a nsl aught e r) ; F une s v. St a te , 289 G a . 793 (2 ) ( 716 SE 2d 183) (20 11) (s a m e ). T hi s e num e ra ti on i s, th us, w ithout
m eri t. 3. Ru ss ell n ext con ten ds th at th e t ri al cou rt erred in exclu di ng evid ence the d e fe nse sou ght

to in tr oduc e re gardi ng a dr ug- re la te d arm e d r obbe ry
a llege dl ype rpe tr a te d on th e vi c ti m s s om e 32 h our s pr io r t o t he m urd e rs . T he7

de fe nse ha d so ught

to a dduc e suc h e vi de nc e insup port o f a th eor y t ha t the
m u r d er s h ad bee n comm itte d by the sa m e individu al (s) who had a lle gedly
comm itt ed th e r ob ber y. We fi nd no erro r in th e t ri al cou rt ’s ru lin g o n th is is su e. E vi de nc e im

pl ic a ti ng anothe r i ndi vi dua l a s the a c tu a l p e rpe tr a to r o f a crime is admiss ib le o n ly if it i den tif

ies a sp ecific p erso n h avi ng a dir ect
c onne c ti on w ith the c orp us de li c ti
. A z iz i v. State , 270 Ga
. 709 (6) (51 2 SE 2d 622) (19 99 ). “‘ E vi de nc e w hi c h c a n have no o th e r e ff e c t than t o c a st

a bare
sus pi c io n on anothe r, or

to ra is e a c onj e c tu ra l inf

e re nc e a s t o t he c omm is si on o f th e crime by ano th er, is n o t ad m is si bl e.’” Id . at 71 3. Accor d Gr if fi n v . St ate, 28 0 Ga. 6 83 , 68 6 ( 3) ( 6 31 SE2 d 6 71 ) ( 20 06 ) ( tr ial co ur t p ro per ly exclu ded
e vi de nc e a

bout anothe r mur de r b e a ri ng s im il a ri ti e s t o c ri m e s a t i ss ue be c ause there we re no id en t ifie d suspect s in that m urder and thus e videnc e would “m e re ly spe c ul a te th a t som e unkn ow n pe rs on m a yhave c omm it te d t he c ri m e ” ). He re, the connec tion betw ee n the robb ery and the vict im s’ m urder wa s purely
c onj e c tu ra l, and the e vi de nc e w a s th us prope rl ye xc lu de d f or th is re a son . Mo re ove r, th e pr off

e re d e vi de nc e, t o the e xt e ntit w oul d have im

pl ic a te d t he victi m s in drug-rela te d ac tivitie s bearing only a spec ulati ve fac tual nexus with th e crime s at is su e here, was i n ad mi s s ib le character ev id ence. See, e. g.,8

R ose be rryv. St a te , 274 G a . 301 (2) (55 3 SE2 d 589) ( 2001 ) ( a ff irm in g e xc lu si on of evide nce re garding victi m ’s debts and alle ged illeg al a ct ivitie s bec ause it la c ke d a suf fi c ie ntfa c tu a l n e xus w ith t he c ri m e s a t i ss ue ). 4. Ru ss ell a ls o ch allen ges th e tri al cou rt ’s refu sal t o d eclare a m is tr ial as th e resu lt o f a no n- resp on si ve s tateme nt by Of fi cer Wil bo rn du ri ng hi s d ir ect
e xa m in a ti on. Inth e c our se of hi s t e st im ony

re gardi ng the Fe bru a ry200 2 MA R T A st a ti on i nc id e nt , Wi lb ornw a s a ske d w he th er he ha d ob ta in e d any
w itne ss st a te m e nt s r e gardi ng the in c id e nt , and i n r e spo ndi ng h e st ate d “the re
w a s on e ot he r guy[s ic ] sa id he ha d a ls o go t a ss aul te d. ” T he de fe nse imm edi ately

obj e c te d, and, fo ll ow in g a be nc h c onf

e re nc e , th e tr ia l j udge in struc te d t he ju ryto di sr e gard th e st a te m e nt in que st io n. We c onc lu de th a t the tr ial co ur t p ro per ly add ress ed th e po ten tia l p re jud ice fro m

th is stat em ent – wh ich
c oul d have be e n c ons tr

ue d a s i m pro pe r e vi de nc e of R

uss e ll ’s c omm is si on o f a si m il a r transa c ti on – by ord e ri ng ju ror s to di sr e gard it a nd in struc ti ng W il born
ou ts id e the ju ry’s pr esence to refr ain fr om r eferen cin g any in cid ent s ot herth an R e nfr oe ’s a ss aul t. Se e B unne ll v. State , 292 G a . 253 (4) (73 5 SE 2d 2 81) (2 013) (no ti ng tha t c urative in struc ti ons are ge ne ra ll ya de qua te to re m e dya w itne ss ’ in a dve rt e ntand n on- re spo nsi ve re fe re nc e to th e a c c use d’s pr io r c ri m in a l a c ts );9

Sc rug gs v . State , 273 G a . 752, 753 (2) (54 5 SE 2d 8 88) (2 001) (a ff irm in g us e of
c urati ve in struc ti ons a s an a lt e rnati ve to m is tr ia l w he re suc h i nstruc ti ons “a de qua te ly

pr e se rve [] a

ppe ll a nt ’s ri ght

to a fa ir tr ia l” ). T he tr ia l c ourt d id not abu se its di scret io n i n d eclin in g t o d eclare a m is tr ial. S ee Bunn ell, 2 92 Ga. at 257- 258; Sc rug gs, 273 G a . a t 7 53. 5. R uss e ll ne xt a ss e rt s e rr or in th e tr ia l c ourt’ s r e fus a l t o a ll ow th e de fe nse to re fr e sh the re c ol le c ti on o f s e ve n-y e a r-ol d Ari yanna C a to bysho w in g he r a vi deo recor di ng of

herfo ren si c int erv iew in its enti rety. Even ass umin g t he tr ial
c ourt e rr e d i n l im it ing th e de fe nse ’s use of th e vi de o t o r e fr e sh A ri y a nna ’s
rec ollec tion – an issue which, partic ularly in light of the witne ss’ te nder a ge, we
e xpr e ss ly de c li ne to de c id e – w e fi nd no harm to th e de fe nse re sul ti ng fr om th e li m it a ti ons im

pos e d. T he re cor d re fl e c ts th a t the de fe nse a c tu a ll ysuc c e e de d, des pi t e t he s e l i m i t a t i on s , i n e l i c i t i ng f r om A r i y a nn a

t e s t i m on yt hatar guably im pe a c he d N a ta sha

C a to ’s a sserti on th a t s he ha d no t t a lk e d t o anyof th e
c hi ldre n a bout th e m urd e rs be for e th e ir

fo re nsi c in te rvi e w s. R

uss e ll of fe rs no arg ument as to what add iti on al test imon y the d efens e exp ected to hav e elicited fr om Ari yann a had sh e been per m itt ed to view the vi deo in i t s en tir ety. Ac cordingly, it is highlyprobable that any e rror in this regard did no t c ontributeThe r ules for adm issib ility of s uch evidence u nder the new Georgia E vidence 2 Code, e ffec tive for trials com m enced on or after

Janu ar y 1 , 201 3, ar e codified at OCG A § 24–4–4 04 (b).

10 to th e ju ry ’s ve rdi c t. Se e ge ne ra ll yR iv e ra v. St a te , 295 G a . 380 (2 ) ( 761 SE 2d 30 ) ( 20 14 ). 6. A s t o R

uss e ll ’s re m a in in g e num e ra ti on re gardi ng the a dm is si on o f evi den ce regard in g t he F ebruar y 2 00 2 MARTA st atio n in cid ent , w e n ot e as an in it ia l m a tt e r th a t R

uss e ll fa il e d to obj e c t a t tr ia l on th e gro unds he now a ss e rt s. T houg h the de fe nse uns uc c e ss ful ly a rgu e d for the in c lu si on o f c e rt a in la ngua ge in th e tri al cou rt ’s ju ry char ge o n ev id en ce o f p r i o r d if fi cul ties , and th en
uns uc c e ss ful ly

m ove d f or a m is tr ia l w he n O ff

ic e r W il born al lu de d to a

di ff e re nt
a ss aul t, se e D iv is io n 4, sup ra , th e de fe nse di d no t o bj e c t g e ne ra ll yto th e admiss io n o f ev i d en ce r egard in g t he 2 00 2 i nci den t. Accor di ng ly, Rus sell has fa il e d t o pr e se rve th is is sue fo r a ppe ll a te re vi e w . Se e Mo ore , sl ip op. a t 1 0. Mo re ove r, e ve n a ss um in g R uss e ll ha d pr e se rve d t hi s i ss ue , th e re w a s no e rr or in adm itting this e videnc e, a s “evide nce of prior difficultie s betw ee n [Russel l]
a nd the vi c ti m

w a s a dm is si ble as pr oof of th e ir re la ti ons hi p and t o sh ow [R uss e ll ’s ] m ot iv e and i nt e nt
. ” Fa ir c lo th v. St a te , 2 93 Ga. 13 4, 137 (2 ) ( 744 SE 2d 5 2) (20 13)
. T ha t s e ve ra l y e a rs e la pse d be tw e e n t he 200 2 i nc id e ntand the 211

2008 m urd e rs be a rs not

on th e a dm is si bi li ty of th e e vi de nc e but ra th e r o nl yon it s e vi de nt iaryw e ig ht
. Se e R ow e v. St a te , 276 G a . 800 (5) (5 82 S E 2d 1 19) (2003 ). This e num eration is, the refore , w ithout m eri t. Jud gm e nta ff

irm e d. A ll th e Jus ti c e s c onc ur.