FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, BRA NCH and BETHEL, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

p h y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

June 28, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A0 20 9 . GREGORY v . THE STATE.

B E T H E L , J u d g e.

Ri ch ard Greg o ry ap p eal s fro m t h e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al fo l l o wi n g

h i s co n v i ct i o n o n a si n g l e co u n t o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery fo r wh i ch he was s en t en ced to

t wen t y y ears i m

pri s o n m en t an d o rd ered t o pay a fi n e. On ap p eal

, Greg o ry al l eg es t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt erred by ad m i t t i n g i n t o ev i d en ce an d p u b l i sh i n g t o t he ju ry a reco rd i n g

o f a 9 -1 -1 cal l th at was p l aced s h o rt l y aft er t h e i n ci d en t gi v i n g ri s e t o h i s arres t

, an d

b y ad m i tt i n g cert ai n st at em en t s b y a wi t n es s o v er t h e d efen dan t ’ s h ears ay o b ject i o n.

He al s o al l eg es t h at h i s tri al co u n s el was i n effect i v e b y fai li n g t o o b ject t o t h e

ad m i s s i o n o f t he 9 -1 -1 cal l reco rd i n g

. Fi n al l y, h e arg u es t h at t h e t ri al ju d g e

i m p ro p erl y c o m m e n t e d o n th e ev i d en ce in t h e cas e wh en i n s tru ct i n g t h e ju ry as towh at i t wo u l d h ear w hen t h e 9-1 -1 cal l was p lay ed i n co u rt

. Fo r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h

b el o w, we affi rm

h is co n v i ct io n

.

On ap peal

, t h e d efen d an t “ i s n o l o n g e r p res u m ed i n n ocen t an d al l o f t h e

e v i d en ce i s t o b e vi ewed i n th e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab le t o t h e ju ry v erd ict .” Ba t t e n v

.

S t a t e

, 2 9 5 Ga. 44 2, 44 3 (1 ) (7 6 1 SE2 d 7 0 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (ci tat i o n s om i t t e d )

. S o v i ewed

,

s h o rt l y aft er m i d n i g ht o n e ev en i n g

, Karen An drews was at th e h om e of a fri en d wh en

s h e pl aced a cal l t o Greg o ry as k i n g t h at he co m e t o t h e h o u s e t o p i ck her u p

. He

arri v ed a few m i nu t es l at er, an d t h e t wo o f t h em d ro v e back t o An d rews ’ h ou s e wh ere

t h ey s p en t t h e n i g h t

.

Th e nex t aft ern o on

, a n ei g h b o r o f An d rews h eard scream i n g ou t s id e her h o m e.

Th e n ei g h b o r wal k ed o u t o f h er h o u s e a n d r a n d o wn t h e s t reet

, fi n d i n g An d rews

s i tt i n g o n t he g ro u n d

. An d rews was h y s t eri cal an d cry i n g

, h er ey e was s w o l l en

, an d

h e r f a c e was b l eed i n g

. At t h at t i m e, t h e n ei g h b or al s o s aw a m an l eav e A n d rews ’

h o u s e, get i n to a car p ark ed in An d r e w s ’ d r i v eway

, an d d ri v e away

. Th e n ei g h b o r

l at er t es t i fi ed t h at An d rews t o l d h er t hat t h e m an h ad b eat en h er u p

. 1

1 Th i s s t at em en t was ad m i t t ed o ver t h e d efen se’ s h ears ay o b ject i o n . Th e t ri al

co u rt ru led t h at A n drews ’ s t at em en t t o t h e n ei g h bo r co u l d b e ad m it t ed as an ex ci t ed

u t t eran ce.

2A few m i n u t es l at er, A n d r e w s p l a ced a 9 -1 -1 cal l to t h e co u n ty p o l i ce

d ep art m en t

. 2 An d rews rem ai n ed o n t h e l i n e wi t h th e o p erat or u nt i l p o li ce arri v ed

, at

wh i ch t i m e t h e res po n d i n g o f fi cer o b s erv ed i n

ju ri es t o h er face. Fo l l o wi ng fu rt h er

i n v es t i g at i o n b y th e p o l i ce, i n cl u d i n g an in terv i ew of An d rews

, G reg o ry was arres t ed

an d ch arg ed wi t h a s i n g l e co u n t o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

. 3

Befo re t ri al

, G reg o ry m o v ed t o s u p pres s t h e reco rd i n g o f A n d rews ’ 9 -1 -1 cal l

.

Th e co u rt d en i ed t h e m ot i o n b u t ru l ed t h at cert ai n st at em en t s m ad e b y An d rews i n t h e

cal l pl aci n g Greg o ry ’ s ch aract er at i s s u e wo u l d b e red act ed fro m t h e reco rd i n g p ri o r

t o t ri al

.

An d rews was n o t av a i l a b l e t o t e s t i fy at t he t ri al

, 4 an d t h e St at e d i d n o t cal l

an y o n e fro m t h e 9 -1 -1 cen t er to t es t i fy reg ard i ng h er cal l. In st ead

, t h e red act ed 9 -1 -1

reco rd i n g was p l ay ed b efo re t h e ju ry i n co n j u n ct i o n wi t h t es t i m o ny fro m t h e p o l i ce

o ffi cer wh o arri v ed at A n d r e w s ’ ho u s e fo l l o wi n g t he cal l

. Th e reco rd i n g was

acco m pan i ed b y s ev eral do cu m en t s rel at i n g t o t h e cal l

, i n cl ud i n g a r e c o rd s

2 Th e co n t en t s o f th i s 9 -1 -1 cal l are d i s cu s s ed i n m o re d e t ai l i n Di v i s i o n 1 (a)

o f t h i s o p i n i o n

.

3 S ee OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4

.

4 Th e reco rd i nd i cat es t h at An d rews pas s ed away i n Decem b e r 2 0 1 4 f

r o m

cau s es u nrel at ed t o t he i n ci d en t g i v i n g ri s e t o t h i s cri m i nal act io n an d ap p eal

.

3cert ifi cat i o n fro m t h e 9 -1 -1 cen t er an d a co p y o f t h e d is p at ch rep o rt (k n o wn as a CAD

rep o rt ). 5

Al t h ou g h t h e St at e h ad pro v i d ed each o f t h e s e d o cu m en t s an d a co p y o f t h e

reco rd i n g t o Greg ory as p art o f p re-t ri al d i s co v ery

, th e St at e di d no t pro v i de Greg o ry

wi t h s ep arat e n o t i ce o f i t s i n t en t t o i n t ro d u ce t he 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g as a b u s i n es s reco rd

p u rs u an t t o Ru l e 9 0 2 (1 1 ). Greg o ry di d n ot ch al l en g e t h e a d m i ss i b il i t y o f t h e

reco rd i n g an d t h e d o cu m en t s as b u s i n es s reco rd s

. 6

Th e t ri a l j u d g e, p ri o r t o p l ay i ng t h e reco rd i n g

, i ns t ru ct ed th e ju ry t h at i t was

ab o ut to hear an au d io reco rd i n g o f t h e “ al l eg ed v ict i m ” o n t h e 9

- 1

- 1 c a l l

. G r eg o ry

m ad e n o o b

ject i o n to t h i s i n st ru ct i o n at t ri al

. L at er t es t i m o n y by a p ol i ce in v es t i g at o r

5 Po rt i o n s o f t he red act ed 9 -1 -1 cal l were al s o pl ay ed t o t h e ju ry as p art o f t h e

St at e’ s cl o s i ng arg u m en t an d ag ai n d u ri n g d el ib erat i o n u p o n req ues t b y t h e ju ry

.

6 At t h e h eari n g on Greg o ry ’ s m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al

, th e St at e ad m i t ted t o t h e

t r i a l co u rt t h at i t di d n o t p ro v i d e s ep arat e n o t i ce t o t h e d efen s e t h at i t p lan n ed to

i n t ro du ce t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g as a b u s i n es s reco rd

. Th e St at e arg u ed t o th e t ri al co u rt

t h at

, b y fai l i n g t o o bject t o i n t ro d u ct i o n o f t h e reco rd i ng o n t h at b as i s

, Greg o ry h ad

wai v ed t h e n ot i ce req u i rem en t

. At t h e s am e h eari n g

, Greg o ry ’ s t ri al co u n s el i n d i cat ed

t h at h e co u l d n o t t h i n k of a st rat eg i c reas o n fo r w h y h e w o u l d n o t h av e m o v ed to

ex cl u d e t h e reco rd in g o f t he 9 -1 -1 cal l p u rs u an t t o R u l e 9 0 2 (1 1 ). Greg o ry ’ s t ri al

co u ns el al s o i n d i cat ed at t h e m o t i on h eari n g t h at h e di d n o t h av e a s t rat eg i c reas o n

fo r fai l i n g t o o b

j e ct t o t h e ad m i s s i o n o f t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g o n t h e g ro u n d s t h at i t

co n tai n ed i n ad m i ss i b l e hears ay an d t h at t h e St at e fai l ed t o au t h en t i cat e t h e c a l l e r ’ s

v o i ce.

4i n d i cat ed t h at Karen An d rews w a s t h e p ers o n wh o p l aced t h e 9 -1 -1 cal l, b u t t h i s

i n fo rm at i o n w as n o t sh ared w i t h t he j u ry t h ro u g h wi t n es s t es t i m o n y b efo re t h e

reco rd i n g o f t he cal l was p l ay ed i n co u rt

.

Greg o ry was co nv i ct ed o f a si n gl e co u n t o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

. Th e t ri al co u rt

d en ied o f Greg o ry ’ s m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al an d t hi s ap p eal fo ll o wed

.

1

. Greg o ry fi rs t a s s e r t s t h at t h e t ri al co urt erred b y d en y i ng h i s m o t i o n to

s u p p res s t h e 9 -1

- 1 r e c o rd i n g

, arg u i n g th at ad m i ss i o n o f t h e cal l v i o l at ed Greg o ry ’ s

Si x t h Am en d m en t ri g h t to co n fro n t t h e cal l er as a wi t n es s b ecau se at l eas t s om e o f t h e

s t at em en t s m ad e o n t h e cal l were t es t i m on i al in n at u re. Greg o ry al s o arg u es t h at t h e

reco rd i n g s h o u l d h av e b een s u pp res s ed b ecau se s t at em en t s m ad e by An d rews o n t h e

cal l w ere n o t ad m is s i b l e u n der an y h ears ay ex cep t i o n. Fo r th e reas on s s et fo rt h b el o w,

we affi rm t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en ial o f Greg o ry ’ s m o t i on t o s up p res s

.

(a) In C r awf o r d v. W a s h i n g t o n

, 7 t h e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt h el d t h at

s t at em en t s m ad e b y wi t n es s es o u t s i d e t h e co urt ro o m t h at are t es t i m o n i al in n at u re are

b arred fro m ad m i s s i o n i n to ev i d en ce b y th e Co n fro nt at i o n Cl au s e u n l es s t h e wi t n es s

i s u n av ai l ab l e at t ri al an d t h e d efen d an t had a p ri o r o p p o rt u n i t y t o cro s s -ex am i n e t h e

w i t n e s s

. A s u b seq uen t d eci s i o n by t h e Un i t ed St at e Su p rem e Co u rt

, Da vi s v

.

7 5 4 1 U.S. 3 6, 5 3 -5 4 (1 2 4 SCt 1 3 5 4 , 1 5 8 LE2 d 1 7 7 ) (2 0 04 ).

5W

a s h i n g t o n

, 8 ap p l i ed t h is p ri n ci p l e t o t h e ad m i s s i o n o f a vi ct i m ’ s 9 -1 -1 co n v ers at i o n

i n wh i ch s h e i den t i fi ed t h e d efen dan t as her as s ai lan t

. I n D a vi s

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

h el d t h at s t at em en t s m ad e t o t h e 9 -1 -1 o p erat o r w h i l e t h e d efen d an t was i n t h e h o m e

o f t h e cal l er i n v i o l at io n o f a p ro t ect i v e o rd er were n o t t es t i m o n i al

. Da vi s

, 5 4 7 U. S.

at 82 6 -2 8

. Th e Su p rem e Co u rt reas o n ed t h a t s t at em en t s m ad e t o t h e o p erat o r

i d en t i fy i n g t h e d e f

e n dan t were m ad e wh i l e t h e in ci d en t was s t il l un fo l d i n g (as

o p p o s ed t o a des cri pt i o n o f pas t ev en t s ) an d t h at t he p ri m ary pu rp o se o f t h e co l l o q uy

wi t h t h e 9-1 -1 o p erat o r was to o b t ai n p o l i c e a s s i s t a n ce t o i n t erv en e i n “ an o n g o i n g

em erg en cy ” wh ere p h y s ical h arm t o t h e cal l er was p o s s i b le. Id

.

As t h e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt s u b s eq u en t l y n o t ed

,

[ i ] n Mi ch i g an v. Br ya n t

, 9 t h e Su p rem e Co u rt g av e fu rt h er g u i d an ce o n

t h i s s u b j ect

. Th e co u rt referen ced t h e “ p ri m ary p u rp o s e” t es t

, b u t ci ted

ad d i ti o n al fact o rs t o d et erm i n e wh et h er a s t a t e m en t was m ad e t o m eet

a n o n g o i n g em erg en cy

, i n cl u d i n g t h e n at u re o f t h e em erg en cy

, th e

fo rm al i t y o f th e ex ch an g e, an d t h e p ro b ab l e in t en t o f t he p art i es ju d g ed

b y an o b ject i v e o b s erv er.

Ha t ley v. S t a te , 2 9 0 Ga. 4 8 0, 4 85 (7 2 2 SE2 d 6 7 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

8 5 4 7 U.S. 8 13

, 8 2 6 -2 7 (1 2 6 SCt 2 2 6 6, 1 6 5 LE2 d 2 24 ) (2 0 0 6).

9 5 6 2 U.S. 3 44

, 3 6 0 (1 3 1 SCt 1 14 3 , 1 7 9 LE2 d 9 3 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

6Here, we ag re e w i t h t h e t ri al co urt t hat t he st at em en t s o n t h e cal l were n ot

t e s t i m o n ial i n n at u re. Th e 9 -1 -1 cal l was p l aced s ev eral m i n ut es aft er Greg o ry h a d

d ri v en away fro m An drews ’ h o u s e, an d h er s tat em en t s on t h e cal l d es cri b ed i n s o m e

d et ai l h er i n

ju ri es an d t h e i n ci d en t t h at o ccu rred b et ween h er an d Greg o ry t h at

aft ern o o n

. Ho wev er, o n t h e cal l

, An d rews p ro v i d ed G reg o ry ’ s p hy si cal d es cri p t i o n,

d es cri b ed h i s v eh i c l e

, i d e n t i fi ed h i s res i d en ce, an d s tat ed t h e l o cat io n An d rews

b el i ev ed h i m t o be d ri v i n g t o ward aft er h e l eft h er h o u s e. Sh e a l s o i n d i c a t ed t o t h e

o p erat o r t h at s h e b el iev ed Greg o ry was s en di n g s o m eo n e t o h er h o u s e t o k i l l h er.

Th i s c a s e i s cl o s el y an al o g o u s t o t h e Geo rg i a Su prem e Co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n in

Th o ma s v. S t at e

, 2 8 4 Ga. 5 4 0

, 5 4 2 -4 5 (2 ) (6 68 SE2 d 7 11 ) (2 0 0 8 ). In Th o ma s

, t h e

v i ct i m w as at t ack ed b y t h e d efen d an t i n a v eh i cl e p ark ed i n fro nt o f h er h o m e. Id

. at

5 4 1

. Sh e was fo u nd b y a n ei g h bo r wh o pl aced a 9 -1 -1 cal l o n her b eh al f in wh i ch t h e

n ei g h b o r rel ay ed i n fo rm at i o n fro m t h e v ict i m i d en t i fy in g h er at t ack er an d t h e s o u rce

o f h er i nju ri es

. Id

. Th e n ei gh b o r al s o p ro v i d ed a d es cri p ti o n o f t h e as s ai l an t ’ s v eh i cl e.

Id

. Th e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt ru l ed t h at t hes e s t at em en t s were n ot tes t im o n i al

, in

t h at t h ey were m ad e “ wh i l e t h e i n ci d en t was s t i l l o n g oi ng an d t h e p erp et rat o r was at

l arg e.” Id . at 5 4 3

.

7Here, l i k e i n Th o ma s

, ev en t h ou g h th e 9 -1 -1 cal l in t h i s cas e was m ad e s ev eral

m i n u t es aft er G reg o ry h ad fl ed t h e p rem i s es

, th e s t at em en t s m ad e b y An d rews were

n o t tes t i m o n i al b ecau s e th ey were m ad e w h i l e Greg o ry rem ai n ed at l arg e an d b ecau s e

t h ey p ro v i d ed in fo rm at i on t h at co u l d ai d au th o ri t i es i n hi s cap t u re. 1 0 W e t h erefo re

affi rm t h e t r i a l co u rt ’ s det erm i n at i on t h at s t at em en t s m ad e by Greg o ry i n t h e

reco rd i n g were n o t t es t i m o n i al

.

(b ) G reg o ry al s o arg u es t hat t h e t ri al co u r t e r r e d in co n cl u d i n g t h at t h e

s t at em en t s i n t h e cal l w ere ad m i s s i b l e as an ex ci t ed u t t eran ce an d u n d er wh at i t refers

t o as t h e “ n eces s i ty ex cep t i o n .” Fro m t h e reco rd bel o w, i t ap p ears t hat t h e t ri al co u rt

d et erm i n e d t h a t t h e co n t en t s o f t h e cal l co u l d b e ad m i t t ed p urs u an t t o Ru l e 8 0 3 (2 )

as an ex ci t ed u t t eran ce an d p u rs u an t t o Ru l e 8 0 4 (a) (4 ), wh i ch ap p l i es t o u n av ai l ab l e

wi t n es s es

. Greg ory

, h o w ev er, fa i l s t o c i t e to t h e reco rd o r d raw o ut an y au t h o ri t y

1 0 C f

. P i t t s v. S t a te

, 2 7 2 Ga. Ap p

. 1 8 2, 18 7 (6 1 2 SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 0 5), wh er e w e

u p h el d t h e ad m i s s i o n o f a 9 -1 -1 cal l i n w h i ch t he v i ct i m cal led t h e p o l i ce t o req u es t

t h at t h ey co m e t o h er h o m e to rem o v e t h e d efen d an t

, wh o h ad b ro k en i n

. Th i s Co u rt

r u l ed t h at th e v i ct im ’ s s t at em en t s “ were m ad e wh il e t h e i n ci d en t was act u a l l y i n

p ro g res s

. . . were n o t m ad e fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f es t ab l i s h i n g o r p ro v i n g a fact reg ard i n g

s o m e p as t ev en t

, bu t fo r th e p u r p o s e o f p rev en t i n g o r st o p p i n g a cri m e as i t was

a c t u a l l y o ccu r r i n g .” Id

. (em

p h as i s s u p p l i ed ). Th o ma s ap p ears t o ex ten d Pi t t s b y

s u g g es t i n g t h at i n fo rm at io n p ro v i d ed b y t h e vi ct im t h at i s rel ev an t t o t h e as s ai l an t ’ s

cap t u re as h e fl ees in t h e i m m ed i at e aft erm at h o f a p h y s ical at t ack i s n o t t es t i m o n i al

i n n at u re.

8s u p p ort i n g h i s arg u m en t o n t h i s p o i nt

. In s t ead

, h e b al dl y as s ert s t h at t h e St at e fai l ed

t o l ay t h e p ro p er fo u n d at i o n fo r ad m i s s i on o f t h e ev i d en ce. Becau s e o f t he d eart h o f

i n fo rm at i o n p ro v i d ed t o t h i s Co u rt i n su p po rt o f t hi s arg u m en t

, p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f

Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 5 (c) (2 ), we d eem th e arg u m en t ab an d o n ed an d d o n o t co n s i d er i t

h ere. S ee S l mb ey v. S t a t e

, 2 8 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 1 7

, 7 1 8 (6 5 5 SE2 d 2 2 3 ) (2 0 07 ) (fi n d i n g

ab an do n m en t o f i ss ues o n ap peal wh ere ap p el l an t d i d n o t s u pp o rt h i s en um erat i o n o f

erro r wi t h ci t at i o ns t o reco rd o r ap p l i cab l e cas e l aw).

2

. Greg o ry n ex t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n o v erru l i n g h i s h ears ay

o b ject i on t o th e t es t i m o n y o f K aren An d rews ’ n ei g h b o r reg a r d i n g s tat em en t s s h e

h eard A n d rews m ak e fo l l o w i n g t h e in ci d en t

. Ho w e v e r

, i t d o es n o t ap p ear fro m t h e

reco rd b efo re u s t h at Greg o ry rai s ed t h i s i s s u e i n hi s m o t i on fo r a n ew t ri al o r t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt o t h erwi s e h ad an o p p o rt un i t y t o ru l e o n t h i s i s s ue wh en co n s i d eri n g

Greg o ry ’ s arg u m en t s fo r a n ew t ri al

. As an “ ap p el l an t can n o t n ow rai s e an d req u es t

a ru l i n g o n a gro u n d of arg u m en t t h at h e d i d no t m ak e b el o w,” we wi l l n ot co n s i d er

t h i s en u m erat i o n. S to n e v. S t a t e , 2 2 9 Ga. Ap p . 3 6 7, 3 7 1 (2 ) (4 9 4 SE2 d 4 8 ) (1 9 9 7).

3

. Greg o ry arg ues t hat h i s t ri al co u ns el was i n effect i v e b y fai l i n g t o o b ject to

t h e ad m i s s i o n o f th e 9-1 -1 reco rd i n g, th e CAD rep o rt

, an d t h e b u s i n es s reco rd

cert ifi cat i o n o n t h e gro u n d t h at t h e St at e fai led t o fi le p re-t ri al n o t i ce o f i ts i n t en t to

9i n t ro du ce t h e reco rd i n g as a b u s i n es s reco rd p u rs u an t t o Ru l e 8 0 3 (6 ) an d Ru l e 9 0 2

(1 1 ). W e d i s ag ree w i t h th i s co n t en t i o n b ecau s e Greg o ry can n ot s h o w a reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y t h at th e o u t co m e o f h i s cas e wo u l d h av e b e e n di fferen t h ad a s ep arat e

n o t i ce b een p ro v i d ed

.

Ru l e 9 0 2 (1 1 ) p ro v i des

, i n rel ev an t part

, t h at “ [a] p a r t y i n t en d i ng to o ffer a

reco rd i n t o ev i d e n c e u n d e r t h i s parag rap h s h al l p ro v id e wri tt en n ot i ce o f s u ch

i n t en t i o n t o al l ad v ers e p art i es an d s h al l m ak e t h e reco rd an d d ecl arat i on av ai l ab l e fo r

i n s p ect i on s uffi ci en t l y i n ad v an ce o f t hei r offer i n to ev i d en ce to p ro v i d e an ad v ers e

p art y wi t h a fai r o p p ort u n i t y

t o ch al l en g e s u ch reco rd an d d ecl arat io n [.] ”

T o e s ta blish ine f f e c t i v e as s i s t an ce o f co un s el u n d er S tr ickl a n d v. W as h i n g t on

, 1 1

t h e d efen d an t m

us t s h o w t h at t he t ri al co u n sel ’ s p erfo rm an ce was d efi ci en t an d t h at

t h ere i s a reas o n ab l e p o ss ib i l i t y t h at t h e tri al res u l t wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t i f n ot

fo r t h e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce.

In t h i s cas e, wi t h o u t reg ard t o h i s t ri al co u n sel ’ s p erfo rm an ce, Greg o ry can n ot

s at i s fy t h e s eco n d pro n g o f t h e S t r i ckl a n d an al y s i s b ecau s e h e has n o t s h o wn h o w t h e

res u l t o f h i s t ri al wo u l d d i ffer h ad h e recei v ed a s ep arat e n o t i ce. Al t h o u g h t h e St at e

ad m i t s t h at i t d i d n ot p ro v i d e Greg o ry wi t h a s ep arat e d ocu m en t i n d i cat in g it s i n t en t

1 1 4 6 6 U.S. 6 6 8, 6 8 8 (III) (A) (1 0 4 SCt 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 )

10t o i n t ro d u ce t he d o cu m en t s as b u s i n e s s reco rd s

, i t i s n o t cl ear h ow G reg o ry was

h arm ed b y t h e fai l u re t o recei v e t h i s n o t i c e

. Wh at i s cl ear i s t h at G reg o ry recei v ed

co p ies o f t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i ng an d i t s s u p p o rt i n g do cu m en t at i o n (wh i ch cert i fi ed t h e

reco rd i n g an d t h e CAD rep o rt as b u s i n es s reco rd s i n co m p l i an ce wi t h Ru l es 8 0 3 (6 )

an d 9 0 2 (1 1 )) as p art o f p re-t ri al d i s co v ery

. He fi led a m o t i o n i n li m i ne t o s u p p res s

t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g an d l at er o b ject ed t h at t h e St at e h a d n o t p ro p erl y l ai d t h e

fo u n dat i o n fo r t he ad m i s s i o n o f t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g i nt o ev i den ce.

Al t h ou g h Greg o ry ’ s tri al co u n s e l d i d n o t rai s e an y ob ject i o n t o ad m i s s i o n o f

t h e e v i d en ce as a bu s in es s reco rd

, th e St at e’ s di scl o s ure o f t h e ev i d en ce a n d t h e

en s u in g p ret ri al p ro ceed i n g s affo rd ed Greg ory th e o p p ort u n i t y to rai se an y o b ject i on s

h e h ad t o t h e reco rd i n g an d i t s acco m p an y i n g d o cu m en t s

. W e fi n d th at t h is s at i s fi es

Ru l e 9 0 2 (1 1 )’ s b ro ad n o t i ce req u i rem en t

.

A c c o r d i ng l y

, as Greg ory can n o t sh o w t h at t h e t ri al co u rt wo u l d h av e b een

l i kel y to ex cl u de t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g h ad h e re c e i v e d s e p arat e n o t i ce o f t h e St at e’ s

i n t en t t o i n t ro d u ce i t

– o r, m o re i m

p o r t a n tl y

, t h at h is tri al res u l t wo u ld h av e b een

d i fferen t h ad h i s co u ns el o bject ed on t h e b as i s o f th e n o ti ce req u i rem en t –h e h as n ot

s at i s fi ed t h e s eco n d p ro n g o f t h e S t r i ckl a n d an al y s i s

. W e th erefo re ag ree wi t h t h e t ri al

11co u rt th at Greg o ry h as n o t s h o wn i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n sel wi t h res p ect t o h i s

t ri al co u n s el ’ s fai l u re t o rai s e t he n o t i ce req u i rem en t

.

4

. Greg ory

n ex t arg u es th at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n ad m i t t in g t h e reco rd i n g o f

t h e 9 -1 -1 cal l b ecau s e i t w as n o t a b u s i n es s reco rd an d b ecau s e t h e St at e fai l ed to

au t h en t i cat e t h e cal l er’ s v oi ce p ri o r t o pl ay i n g t h e r e c o rd i n g t o th e ju ry

. He al s o

arg u es th at ad m i s s i o n o f t h e reco rd i n g w as i n erro r b ecau s e i t c o n t a i n ed h ears ay

.

Fi n al l y

, Greg o ry m ai n t ai n s t h at h i s co u n sel was i n effect iv e b y fai l i n g t o o b ject t o t h e

ad m i s s i o n o f t h e reco rd i n g o n t h es e b as es

.

(a) W e ag ree w i t h t he tri al c o u r t t hat Greg o ry d i d n o t recei v e i n effect i v e

a s s is t an ce wh en h i s t ri al co u n s el fai l ed t o o b ject t o t h e ad m i s s io n o f t h e 9

- 1

- 1

reco rd i n g b ecau s e th e reco rd i n g co u l d pro p erl y b e ad m it t ed as a s el f-au th en t i cat i n g

b u s i n es s reco rd un d er Ru l es 80 3 (6 ) an d 90 2 (1 1 ). Here, t h e reco rd in g o f t h e cal l was

m ad e b y t h e co u n ty

9 -1 -1 cen t er, an d i t w as acco m p an i ed i n t h e reco rd by a wri t t en

d ecl arat io n fro m t h e 9 -1 -1 o p erat i o n s cen t er ce r t i f y i n g th at i t m et t h e req ui rem en t s

o f Ru les 8 0 3 (6 ) an d 9 0 2 (1 1 ). Gr e g o r y p o i n t s u s t o n o au th o ri t y i n d i cat i n g t h at a

reco rd i n g o f a 9 -1 -1 cal l b y t he o p erat i o n s cen t er i s n o t a reco rd m ad e as p art o f t h at

ag en cy ’ s reg u l arl y co n d uct ed act i v i t y o r th at i t s o m eh ow o t h erwi s e fai l s t o m eet t h e

req u i rem en t s o f Ru l es 8 0 3 (6 ) o r 9 0 2 (1 1 ).

12Li k ewi s e, we fi n d Greg o ry ’ s at t em p t s t o an al o g ize 9

- 1- 1 reco rd i n g s t o acci d en t

o r in ci d en t rep o rt s m ad e i n an t i ci p at i o n o f po t en t i al l i ti g at i o n u n p ers u as i v e. Th e

red act ed v ers i on of t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g p l ay ed fo r t h e ju ry co nt ai n s n o ad d i t i o n al

i n fo rm at i o n o t h er th an th e co nv ers at i o n t hat un fo l ded b et ween A n d rews an d t h e

o p erat o r. M o re i m

p o rt an t ly , i t d o es n o t co n t ai n t h e v erb al o r wri t t en i m p res s i o n s o f

an i n v es t i g at o r o r st at em en t s b y an y o t h er part i es m ad e aft er t h e in ci d en t i n q u es t i o n,

t h at m i g h t un d erm i n e t he reco rd i n g ’ s cred i b i l i t y

. Th i s i s i n co n tras t to t h e cas es ci t ed

b y Greg ory i n wh i ch a t h i rd p art y

, u n co n n ect ed t o t h e i n ci d en t i n q u es t i o n p rep ares

a rep o rt w h i ch i n cl u des s t at em en t s i n ad di t i o n t o t h e wi t n es s’ s o w n t es t i m o n y o f wh at

o c c u r red

. Cf

., e.g

., Pa l mer v. Ho

f f ma n

, 3 1 8 U. S. 1 0 9, 1 1 3-1 5 (6 3 SCt 4 7 7

, 8 7 L E

6 4 5 ) (1 9 4 3 ) (fi n d i n g t he acci d en t rep ort p rep ared b y t h e t r a i n co m p an y b as ed o n a

l at er i n t e r v i e w of th e trai n co n d u ct o r b y an ag en t fro m reg u l at o ry ag en cy was n ot

ad m i s s i b l e as b u s in es s reco rd

, as t h e reco rd w as “ cal cu l at ed fo r u s e es s en t i al l y i n t h e

co u rt , n o t i n t h e b us i nes s.”).

W e t h erefo re ag ree wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt th at t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g was ad m i s s i b l e

as a b u s i n es s reco rd p u rs u an t t o Ru l es 8 0 3 (6 ) an d 9 0 2 (1 1 ), an d

, as s u ch

, “ ad d i t i o n al

ex t ri ns i c ev id en ce o f au t h en t i ci t y ” o t h er t h an t h e cert i fi cat i o n b y t h e r e c o rd s

13cu s t o d i an was n o t req u i red

. Acco rd i n g l y

, Greg o ry ’ s co u n s el was n o t i n e f f e c t i v e in

fai l i n g t o rai s e an o bject i o n t o t h e ad m i ss i o n o f t h e reco rd i n g o n t h at b as is

.

(b ) Greg o ry ’ s arg um en t s reg ard i ng ad m i ss i o n o f t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g p u rs u an t

t o ex cep t i o n s t o t he h ears ay ru l e m i rro r t h e p o in t s r a i s ed i n reg ard t o h i s m o t i o n to

s u p p res s , wh i ch we ad d res s ed i n Di v i s i on 1(b ) o f t h i s o p i n i o n

, s u pr a

. As n o t ed , we

h av e d eem ed t h i s arg u m en t ab an d o n ed p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru le 25 (c) (2 ).

5

. Greg o ry arg ues t h at t h e t ri al ju d g e i m p ro perl y co m

m en t e d o n w h at t h e

ev i d en ce i n t he cas e h ad p ro v en wh en t h e j u d ge in s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry t h at i t wo u l d b e

h eari n g a 9 -1 -1 cal l m ad e b y “ t h e al l eg ed v i ct i m ” i n t h e cas e. W e d i sag ree.

A t t ri al

, Greg o ry o bject ed t o t h e i n t ro du ct i o n o f t h e reco rd i n g

, arg u i n g t h a t

An d r e w s ’ v o i c e h ad n o t b een p ro p erl y au t h en t i cat ed

. Th e tri al co u rt o verru l ed t h i s

o b ject i on an d i n st ru ct ed t h e ju ry reg ard i n g t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd i n g , as fo l l o ws :

[Y] o u ’ re ab o u t t o h ear an au d i o reco rd i n g o f a t el ep h o ne cal l o f th e

al l eg ed v i ct i m i n th i s cas e. As y o u h ear t h e au d i o reco r d i n g

, y o u wi l l

h ear t h e i n t erv i ewi n g 9 1 1 o p e rat o r m ak e cert ai n s t at em en t s t o th e

al l eg ed vi ct i m

. I cau t i o n y o u t h at t h e d ecl a r a t i on s o r s t at em en ts o f th e

9 1 1 o p erat o r are n o t ev i d en ce, an d y o u s h o u l d n ot c o n s i d er s u ch

s t at em en t s as ev id en ce un l es s s u ch s t at em en ts are p ro v en t o y o u b y

o t h er co m

p et en t ev i d en ce.

14Greg o ry d i d n ot rai s e an y

o b ject i o n t o t h e wo rd in g o f t h is i n s t ru ct i o n at t ri al

,

b u t o n ap p eal h e arg u es t h at t h e ju d g e’ s referen ce t o th e cal l er as t he “ al l eg ed v i ct i m ”

rel i ev ed t h e St at e o f it s affi rm at i v e b u rd en t o p ro v e t h at Karen A n d rews p laced t h e

9 -1 -1 cal l . W e d i s ag ree.

OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 g o v ern s co m m en t ary b y t h e t ri al co u rt r e ga r ding t h e ev i d en ce

b efo re t he ju ry an d wh at has o r h as n o t b een p ro v en in t h e cas e. Becau se t h i s cas e

cam e t o t ri al i n J u n e 2 0 1 5

, a p ri o r v ers i on o f th i s s t at u t e w as i n effect 1 2 an d pro v i d ed

,

i n rel ev an t p art , t h at :

It i s erro r fo r an y ju d g e i n a cri m i n al cas e, d uri n g i t s p ro g res s

. . . t o

ex p res s o r i n ti m at e h i s op i n i o n as t o wh at h as o r h as n o t b een p ro v ed

.

. . . Sh o u l d an y ju d g e v i o l at e t hi s Co d e s ect i o n

, t h e v i o l at i on s hal l be

h el d b y th e

. . . Co u rt o f Ap p eal s t o b e erro r an d t h e d eci s i o n i n t h e cas e

rev ers ed

, an d a new tri al g ran ted w i t h su ch d i rect i o n s a s t h e

. . . Co u rt

o f Ap p eal s m ay l awfu l l y

g i v e.

S ee Ga. L

. 1 9 8 5

, p

. 11 9 0

, §1

. Un d er t h i s v ers i o n o f t h e s t at u t e, a ju dg e’ s co m m en t ary

o n t h e ev i d en ce co n s ti t u t es p l ai n erro r, an d co u n sel ’ s fai l u re t o co n t em p o ran eo u s l y

1 2 S ee S m a r t v. St at e

, 2 9 9 Ga. 4 1 4, 4 2 3 (4 ) (7 8 8 SE2 d 44 2 ) (2 0 1 6 ) ( a p p l y i n g

fo rm er vers i o n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 b ecau se th at v ers i o n o f t h e s t at u t e was i n effect

at t he t im e o f d efen d an t ’ s t ri al ).

15o b

ject t o s u ch co m

m en t

, as o ccu rred h ere, d o es no t p recl u d e ap pel l at e rev iew. S t a t e

v. Ga r d n er , 2 8 6 Ga. 6 33 , 6 3 4 (6 9 0 SE2 d 1 6 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

In o rd er t o v i o l at e fo rm er OC GA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 an d n eces s i t at e rev ers al

, t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s co m

m en t s m us t pert ai n t o a d i s p u t ed i ss u e o f fact i n t h e cas e. Ga r d n er , 2 8 6

Ga. at 6 3 4 -3 5

. Here, we n o t e t h at at n o p o i nt i n t h e en t i ret y o f th es e p ro ceed i n g s h as

Greg o ry d i s pu t e d t h a t A n d rews was t h e al l eg ed v ict i m i n t h i s cas e. Rat h er t h an

arg u i n g t h at An d rews d i d no t s u ffer t h e i n ju ri es al l eg ed b y t h e St at e, Greg o ry ’ s t h eo ry

o f th e cas e was t h at s om eo n e el s e (o r s o m e cau s e o t her t h an a p h y s i cal at t ack b y h i m )

was t h e cau s e of h er i n

ju ri es

. Al t h o u g h An d rews ’ s tat u s as t h e al l eg ed v i ct i m i n t h e

cas e i s n o t i n d is p u t e, Greg o ry i n v i t e s t h i s C o u rt t o b el iev e t hat t h e i d en t i t y o f t h e

cal l er i s a fact at i ss u e s u ch t hat t h e ju d g e’ s i d en t i fi cat i o n o f t h e vo i ce o n t h e cal l as

t h at o f t h e v i ct i m was an i m perm i ss i b l e co m

m en t u p o n t h e ev i d en ce. W e decl i n e t h i s

i n v i t at i o n

.

Greg o ry ’ s arg um en t t h at

, by ide n ti fy i n g t h e cal ler as t h e al l eg ed v i ct im

, t h e t ri al

co u rt i m p erm i s s i b l y rel i ev ed t h e St at e o f it s b u rd en t o es t ab l i s h fact s au th en t i cat i n g

t h e cal l er’ s vo i ce i s a l s o b as el es s

. Th e t ri al ju d g e had al read y ru l ed o n t h e

ad m i s s i b i l i t y

o f t h e reco rd i n g (a ru l i n g wh i ch d i d n o t n eces s i tat e an y fu rt h er act i o n

b y t h e St at e to m ak e t h e cal l ad m i s s i b l e). S ee

, su p ra

, Di v i s i on 4 (a). Greg o ry can n ot

16n o w at t ack t h at p ri o r ru l i n g b y s u g g es t in g th at t h e j u d ge’ s co m m en t o n a fact wh i ch

i s n o t i n d i s p u t e– t hat An d rews was t he al l eg ed v ict i m i n t h e cas e o r t h at s h e was t h e

cal l er o n t h e 9 -1 -1 reco rd in g– i s “ an o p in i o n as t o wh at h as o r h as no t b een p ro v en .”

Th e p u rp o s e o f OCGA § 17 -8 -5 7 i s t o p rev en t t h e t ri al co u rt fro m i n v ad i n g t h e

p ro v in ce o f t h e ju ry

, ei t h er b y ex p res s i n g i t s v i ews o n t h e cred ib i l i t y o f a wi t n es s 1 3 o r

b y in d i cat i n g wh at fact s i t b el i ev es h av e o r hav e no t b e e n e s t ab l i sh ed b y t h e

ev i d en ce. 1 4 Ca l l a h a m v. S t a t e

, 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. 62 6

, 6 27 (1 ) (7 0 0 SE2 d 62 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ). In

t h i s cas e, n ei t h er o ccu rred

. Th e ju d ge’ s s t at em en t d i d n o t ex p res s an op i n i o n as t o t h e

v eraci t y o f t h e s t at em en ts m ad e i n t h e cal l o r as t o An d rews ’ cred i b i li t y

, n o r d i d t h e

ju d g e’ s st at em en t i n d i cat i n g t h at t h e al l eg ed v i ct i m (wh ich

, b y t h at p o i n t

, w as k n o wn

b y th e ju ry t o b e An d rews ) 1 5 was t h e p ers o n wh o p l aced t h e 9

- 1

- 1 c a l l res o l v e an y

fac tua l di s p u t e t h at wo u l d ai d t h e ju ry i n det erm in i n g wh et her Greg o ry h ad co m m i t t ed

1 3 S e e

, e.g

., Mu r

p h y v. S t a t e

, 2 90 Ga. 4 5 9

, 46 0 -6 1 (a) (7 2 2 SE2 d 5 1) (2 0 1 2 )

(fi n di n g p l ai n erro r u n d er OCGA § 17 -8 -5 7 wh ere t ri al co u rt refer r e d t o wi t n es s as

a “ g o o d d et ect i v e” wh o u s ed h i s “ b es t effo rt s ” i n t h e cas e).

1 4 S ee, e.g

., Pa t el v. St a t e

, 2 8 2 Ga. 4 12

, 4 1 4 -1 5 (6 5 1 SE2 d 5 5 ) (2 00 7 ) (fi n d i n g

p l ai n erro r u n d er OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 wh ere t ri al co u rt i n d i cat ed t h at v en u e was p ro p er

i n t he p ro s ecu t i n g co u n ty ev en t h o u g h t h at was d i s p ut ed b y t h e d efen dan t ).

1 5 Aft er so m e b ri ef p leas an t ri es

, t h e S t a t e b eg an i ts op en i ng arg um en t i n t h e

cas e b y s ay i n g , “ T h e v i ct i m

i n t h i s cas e i s Karen An d rews .”

17t h e ch arg ed o ffen s e. Th e o n l y d i s p u te s eem s t o h av e b een wh et h er t h e St at e h ad l ai d

t h e p ro p er ev i d en t i ary fo u n d at i on i n o rd er t o ad m it t h e reco rd i n g

. As t h i s i s a q u es t i o n

fo r t h e ju d g e, n o t t h e ju ry t o res o l v e, OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 7 do es n o t ap p l y

. W e t h u s fi n d

n o erro r i n t h es e s t at em en t s b y t h e t ri al co u rt

.

6

. Greg ory

fi n al ly arg u es t hat t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y p u bl i s h i ng t h e red act ed

v ers i on o f t h e 9 -1 -1 cal l reco rd i n g t o t he ju ry . Here, t h e reco rd m ak es cl ear t h at t h e

red act i on s we r e m ad e at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n st ru ct io n s o as t o el i m i n at e fro m t h e

reco rd i n g an y ex t ran eo u s s t at em en t s m ad e b y An drews th at i m p erm i s si bl y ad d res s ed

Greg o ry ’ s ch aract er. Th e Geo r g i a Su p rem e Co u rt h as m ad e cl ear t h at

, wh ere t h e

p ro p er fo u n d at i o n fo r a b u s i n e s s reco rd h as b een l ai d an d t h e co u rt h as d eem ed i t

ad m i s s i b l e as s u ch

, p o rt i o ns o f t h e o ri gi n al v ers i o n o f t h e b u s i n es s reco rd co n t ai n i n g

i n fo rm at i o n wh i ch t h e co urt d eem s t o b e i n ad m i ss i b l e can b e red act ed at t h e co urt ’ s

d i rect i o n s o th at o n l y t h e ad m i s s i b l e p o rt i o ns are p r e s e n t ed t o t h e ju ry as ev i d en ce.

S ee Tu r n er v. S t a t e

, 2 7 3 Ga. 3 4 0

, 3 4 4 (4 ) (5 4 1 SE2 d 6 4 1) (2 00 1 ) ( a l l o w i n g

i n t ro du ct i o n o f red act ed v ers i o n o f rep o rt wh ere fu l l rep o rt was d eem ed ad m i s s i b l e

as a b u s i n es s reco rd ). N o ad d i t i o nal au t h en ti cat i on o f t h e re c o r d

, a s red act ed

, i s

req u i re d

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, we fi n d n o erro r i n t h e tri al co u rt ’ s deci s i o n t o p u b l i s h a

red act ed v ers i o n o f t h e 9 -1 -1 cal l t o t h e ju ry

.

18Ju d

gmen t a f fi r m ed . McFa d

d en , P. J., a n d

Br a n ch , J., co n cu r

.

19