Court Opinion

ID: 9556994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 13:03:58.173367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:50.616476
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
 Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
 opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
 prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
 official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                                   Decided: August 21, 2023

                      S23A0465. HATCHER v. THE STATE.

        ELLINGTON, Justice.

        A Liberty County jury found Perry Lee Hatcher, Jr., guilty of

felony murder and cruelty to children in the third degree in

connection with the shooting death of his wife, Dashea Hatcher, in

the presence of their son, M. H. 1 Hatcher contends that his attorney

was ineffective for failing to object to the qualifications of the State’s

        1 The crimes occurred on November 5, 2014. On February 9, 2016, a

Liberty County grand jury indicted Hatcher for malice murder, felony murder,
aggravated assault, cruelty to children in the first degree, and cruelty to
children in the third degree. During a trial that began on December 5, 2016,
the jury found Hatcher guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, and cruelty
to children in the third degree. However, the jury found Hatcher not guilty of
malice murder and cruelty to children in the first degree. On January 13, 2017,
the trial court sentenced Hatcher to serve life in prison for the felony murder
count, merged the aggravated assault count, and imposed a 12-month
consecutive sentence for cruelty to children in the third degree. On January
27, 2017, Hatcher timely filed a motion for a new trial. The motion was heard
on July 5, 2022, and denied on November 9, 2022. On November 18, 2022,
Hatcher filed a timely notice of appeal. The appeal was docketed in this Court
to the April 2023 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
expert witness and to rebut the expert’s opinion concerning fibers

found on the murder weapon. Because Hatcher failed to carry his

burden of showing ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm the

trial court’s order denying his motion for a new trial.

     1. The evidence admitted at trial shows the following. At about

2:50 a.m. on November 5, 2014, Hatcher called 911 from his home in

Hinesville, in Liberty County, and reported that his wife had shot

herself. Officers responded to the home within minutes of the call.

Hatcher, who was holding his baby, M. H., told the officers that

Dashea had shot herself and that her body was upstairs.

     One officer went upstairs to the master bedroom and saw

Dashea lying in bed in a pool of blood. He saw a gun lying on her

abdomen. This officer stood guard to make sure there was no

unauthorized entry into the bedroom or any tampering with

evidence. He testified that, as his sergeant, other officers, and

paramedics arrived, he saw no one touch or move evidence at the

crime scene before its location had been documented. The sergeant

testified that he saw Dashea lying in bed with a gunshot wound to

                                  2
her left cheek and a cell phone and a handgun on her abdomen. He

video-recorded the scene shortly before the paramedics arrived.

     When Detective Joshua Heath arrived, he photographed the

bedroom and Dashea’s body. He testified that he observed a Sig

Sauer 9mm pistol lying on Dashea’s stomach just below her breasts.

He saw a pink cell phone below the gun and blood on Dashea’s shirt

and thighs. Although there was blood spatter on Dashea’s body and

clothing, the gun and cell phone appeared clean. He also noticed a

child’s pacifier resting between Dashea’s thighs. He observed a

wound on her left cheek with a powder burn around it. The crime-

scene photographs show that Dashea’s left arm rested against her

left hip, her right arm rested against the pillow to the right of her

head, and the handgun rested on her abdomen with the butt of the

pistol pointing left. As Hatcher would later testify, Dashea was

right-handed. Dashea’s left contact lens had come out of her eye and

had fallen to her right side. An unfired 9mm round rested between

her upper thigh and the bed. Near Dashea’s left side was a spent

9mm shell casing. Another unfired 9mm round was found at the foot

                                 3
of the bed.

     Detective Heath picked up the gun using gloves and, to make

the weapon safe, he removed the magazine, which still contained

rounds of ammunition. When he pulled back the slide to check the

chamber, he saw that there was no round in the chamber. The

detective, who had experience handling firearms in both the Army

and the police force, testified that he found this “very surprising”

because, when this type of a pistol is fired, the next round in the

magazine ordinarily loads into the chamber once the spent shell

casing has been ejected and the slide moves forward. Detective

Heath also determined that no bullet was jammed in the barrel or

the magazine.

     When an officer swabbed Dashea’s and Hatcher’s hands for

gunshot residue, Hatcher said: “I was up there, so there’s gonna be

residue on my hands.” He also said that he purchased the firearm

because there had been burglaries in the area. M. H.’s skin and

clothing were not tested for gunpowder residue. However,

photographs of M. H. taken at the scene showed blood spatter on the

                                 4
back of his clothing.

     When Detective Gail Poulsen arrived on scene, she asked

Hatcher for his account of what happened. Hatcher said that he and

his wife had argued in the master bedroom about a message she had

seen on his Facebook page concerning a friend’s lawn-mowing

service. He showed the detective the messages on his tablet. He said

that he went to sleep in the guest bedroom, but that Dashea followed

him and hit him. They argued, and then she returned to the master

bedroom. A few moments later, he heard a gunshot. He ran to the

bedroom and saw his wife lying in the bed with a wound to her face

and M. H. in her lap. After Hatcher made this statement, Detective

Poulsen helped process and photograph the scene. The following

day, one of Hatcher’s neighbors told investigators that she thought

it was strange that, just before the shooting, Dashea had changed

her Facebook profile picture from one including her husband to one

showing just her and her son.

     The Hinesville Police Department contacted Danny Routh,

who worked part-time as a crime-scene technician with the City of

                                 5
Richmond Hill, for assistance in recovering fingerprint evidence

from the gun. Routh testified that he processed the gun using an

ultraviolet imaging system that he had used over 50 times before.

     Routh testified that he had been a law enforcement officer for

31 years. When he was promoted to detective in 1998, he started

processing crime-scene evidence in his cases because his department

had no crime-scene technician. He trained in crime scene processing

at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center and did an internship

with Chatham County. He was thereafter certified as a crime-scene

technician. He testified that he had processed over 750 crime scenes

by the time of Hatcher’s trial. He testified that he had also received

training from the company that manufactured a reflective

ultraviolet imaging system that he used to examine objects for

fingerprints without damaging the fingerprints. After being cross-

examined on his qualifications by defense counsel at trial, Routh

was admitted without objection as an expert in his field as a crime-

scene technician.

     Routh testified that he found one fingerprint on the gun’s slide

                                  6
using the ultraviolet light imaging system. He also noticed what

appeared to be “lint” on the gun that was not visible to the naked

eye. He opined that the gun may have been “wiped down,” given that

he found only one fingerprint and a few fibers. He testified that the

fibers “could have been any color” but appeared blue to him through

his camera lens. He agreed that it was possible that the fibers could

have come from a black scarf that Dashea was wearing when she

died. Hatcher’s forensic expert, Christopher Robinson, disputed that

Routh’s ultraviolet light images showed fibers on the gun. Robinson

opined that the images showed blood spatter on the gun, given their

shape, which he described as “punctate marks.” He said that fibers

would appear more elongated. However, the trial court would later

find that Robinson had no training in identifying blood and

instructed the jury to disregard his testimony, based solely on a

visual inspection, about the presence of blood spatter on the gun.

     After Routh conducted his analysis, the Hinesville Police

Department sent the gun to the GBI Crime Lab for further analysis.

A forensic technician processed the gun and found evidence that

                                 7
Routh had missed: five partial latent prints (none of which were

complete enough to be identified), and three faint stains on the slide,

two of which were confirmed through DNA testing to be Dashea’s

blood. The technician testified that useable fingerprints could have

been wiped away by the investigators who initially handled the

weapon. No blood was found on the cell phone. A forensic

examination of the gun revealed that it was working normally. The

cartridge casing recovered from the scene matched cartridges test-

fired from the gun. The gunshot residue test kits from Hatcher’s and

Dashea’s hands both indicated the presence of gunshot residue. A

forensic technician testified that the presence of particles could

indicate that a person had fired a weapon, was in close proximity of

the discharge, or had handled an item with gunshot residue on it.

     Dr. Edmund Donoghue performed the autopsy of Dashea’s

body on November 5, 2014. He observed a gunshot wound on the left

side of her face and a bullet inside the right side of her skull. The

bullet traveled front to back, left to right, and upward. He observed

a ring of abrasion and soot around the wound entrance. Dr.

                                  8
Donoghue estimated the gun was fired about two to three inches

from Dashea’s left cheek, given the presence of gunpowder stippling

measuring about two inches around the entry wound.

     Dr. Donoghue testified that, in his experience, suicide wounds

are primarily contact wounds, with the most common occurring

either on the right temple, in the mouth, below the chin, or on the

chest. He testified that, in his experience, more men than women

use a firearm to commit suicide, with the ratio being about 70

percent to 30 percent, respectively. Captain James Snider, who was

working at the Hinesville Police Department as a detective in 2014,

also testified that, in his experience, women generally do not commit

suicide with a firearm.

     Captain Snider interviewed Hatcher on November 17 at the

police department. He reviewed with Hatcher his Miranda 2 rights.

Hatcher agreed to waive them and signed a waiver-of-rights form.

During the interview, Hatcher maintained that he did not shoot his

wife. He said he heard a gunshot, went to the bedroom, and saw M.

     2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966).

                                     9
H. lying on Dashea’s lap. He said that he did not pick up the gun;

rather, he slid it aside when he grabbed his son. He said that his

wife had been upset at him for not answering the phone when he

was playing basketball at the gym. He said that he had asked her

for a divorce. He also said that, after Dashea’s death, he agreed to

relinquish his parental rights to M. H. to his in-laws if they paid him

$150,000.

     The State presented evidence showing that, although Dashea

had bouts of depression in the past and post-partum depression

following M. H.’s birth, she had received treatment for her

depression and was not suicidal. She even jokingly told one friend

that, no matter how depressed she got, she would never kill herself

because that would mean leaving M. H. with Hatcher. The State also

presented friends and family members of the couple who testified

that the Hatchers’ marriage was troubled, that Hatcher drank

excessively, and that he had numerous affairs. Dashea’s mother

testified that Hatcher contacted her when Dashea was pregnant and

confessed that he did not think that he and Dashea would be able to

                                  10
make their marriage work. He admitted to her that he was a “liar”

and a “cheat” and that he had been “having a texting conversation

with another female.” Dashea’s mother observed that, after M. H.

was born, Hatcher appeared distant and would sit in the garage by

himself, sometimes with a beer or cigar. Dashea told her mother that

Hatcher did not interact with his family.

     The State presented evidence that, on the night of November 4

and early into the morning of November 5, 2014, Dashea was

exchanging text messages with a friend in California. The texts

show that, near midnight, Dashea informed her friend that she was

packing up M. H.’s clothing and preparing to move to South

Carolina, where she had family. Dashea said she wanted a divorce

because she had caught her husband texting another woman and

was “basically fed up and taking the baby to her mom.” She also

knew that Hatcher had asked his mother about how to get a divorce.

Dashea said she intended to get alimony and child support. The

friend offered her reassurance, telling her to focus on M. H. Dashea

sent her last message at 2:08 a.m. – about 40 minutes before

                                 11
Hatcher called 911. The friend did not call Dashea that night

because she saw no reason to; Dashea had complained about

Hatcher’s behavior before, and her texts were not “abnormal.” The

friend testified that the couple argued often and that, on an occasion

when she was staying with them, she had witnessed Dashea and

Hatcher having a heated argument that resulted in Hatcher packing

a bag and leaving the house as Dashea followed, demanding that he

explain where he had been and where he was going.

     Another one of Dashea’s friends testified that Hatcher’s

behavior after Dashea’s death was unusual and that it appeared like

he was celebrating. The witness testified that Hatcher turned on

music and danced during a gathering of family and close friends who

were grieving Dashea’s death. After Dashea’s funeral, her parents

sought a temporary custody order for M. H. Thereafter, according to

Dashea’s mother, Hatcher offered to relinquish his parental rights

to them if they would pay him $150,000. Hatcher suggested they get

the money from the beneficiary of Dashea’s life insurance policy.

Dashea’s mother testified that she later learned that Dashea had

                                 12
named her aunt as a beneficiary. Because Hatcher, like Dashea, was

in the Army, he knew that Dashea was covered by an insurance

policy. Dashea’s parents agreed to Hatcher’s offer, though they

never received any insurance proceeds. Dashea’s mother recorded a

conversation with Hatcher about the agreement, which was played

for the jury. Their agreement, which was reduced to writing and

signed, was also introduced in evidence.

     The State also presented testimony from two women with

whom Hatcher had had affairs while he was married to Dashea. One

of these women testified that, when she was visiting Hatcher in his

home in October 2014, he told her that the baby items present in his

home belonged to “his sister.” Just days before Dashea’s death, he

told this woman that he wanted to “wife” her and “put a ring on her.”

The last time this witness saw Hatcher, in early November, he told

her that his “ex-girlfriend passed away.”

     Another woman who had been Hatcher’s girlfriend in 2012 and

2013, testified that she had reconnected with Hatcher in 2014, after

he returned from Afghanistan, and they resumed a sexual

                                 13
relationship. At the time, she was unaware that Hatcher was

engaged to Dashea. When she learned of the engagement, Hatcher

told her there was “a baby involved.” Later, Hatcher admitted to her

that he was married but said that he was getting a divorce. The

State presented evidence that Hatcher texted extensively with this

woman during October and November and that the two professed

love for each other. On November 4, 2014, at 10:16 p.m., Hatcher

told this woman that he was going to be “in the field” for the next

month. When she invited him to stay with her during the holidays,

he responded that he was at a friend’s house but that he had no

plans for the holidays. She also asked to see his divorce papers, but

Hatcher did not reply until November 8, when he texted her that his

“ex-wife” had died.

     Hatcher testified in his defense at trial. He said that, on the

night of November 4, he had been downstairs playing Xbox games

while Dashea was taking care of M. H. upstairs. He said he went

upstairs around 11:00 p.m. to go to bed and was later awakened by

Dashea standing over him, accusing him of cheating. He claimed

                                 14
that she threw his phone at him and called him a cheater and then

punched him in the face and chest. He said he got out of bed to lie

down in the spare bedroom, but, after he dozed off, she came in and

yelled at him again and hit him. When M. H. started crying, Dashea

returned to the master bedroom and yelled at her son. Then it got

quiet, and he heard a gun go off. Hatcher testified that he ran to the

bedroom, where he saw Dashea with a gunshot wound to her head

and the baby “across her lap.” He said he used two fingers to push

the gun away, which he said was lying on his son’s arm. He grabbed

M. H. and then called 911.

     Hatcher also claimed that exchanging his parental rights for

$150,000 was Dashea’s mother’s idea. He denied knowing the

identity of the beneficiary of Dashea’s life insurance policy. He

admitted, however, that he had lied to his girlfriends multiple times

about his marital status. On cross-examination, he claimed that he

did not think it was relevant to tell the police about his affairs.

Finally, he confirmed that Dashea was right-handed.

     2.   Hatcher   contends   that   his   trial   counsel   rendered

                                 15
constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to Routh’s

fiber-evidence opinion testimony on the ground that Routh was not

qualified as an expert on fiber evidence. He also argues that counsel

was deficient in failing to present expert testimony rebutting

Routh’s opinion. While Routh’s testimony with respect to blood and

fingerprint evidence on the gun was contradicted by GBI experts, no

witness contradicted Routh’s testimony that fibers were present on

the gun. Thus, Hatcher argues, even if Routh was qualified to testify

as he did, trial counsel was constitutionally deficient in failing to

rebut this testimony. Further, during the hearing on his motion for

a new trial, Hatcher presented evidence that the State had disclosed

during discovery an unsigned GBI report showing that the gun had

been “examined for the purpose of collecting and preserving

potential hair and/or fiber, and none were found.” Trial counsel did

not speak with the author of the report prior to trial and did not

present that person as a witness. Hatcher argues that counsel’s

failure to effectively rebut Routh’s testimony with this report

prejudiced Hatcher because Routh’s testimony provided a basis for

                                  16
the jury to infer that he had “wiped down” the gun to remove his

fingerprints. For the following reasons, the trial court did not err in

denying Hatcher’s motion for a new trial on ineffective assistance of

counsel grounds.

     To prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel,

Hatcher must prove both that his counsel’s performance was

professionally deficient and that he was prejudiced by the deficient

performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (III)

(104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984); Terry v. State, 284 Ga. 119, 120

(2) (663 SE2d 704) (2008). To prove deficient performance, Hatcher

must show that his counsel performed “in an objectively

unreasonable way considering all the circumstances and in the light

of prevailing professional norms.” Romer v. State, 293 Ga. 339, 344

(3) (745 SE2d 637) (2013). To prove prejudice, Hatcher “must show

that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U. S. at 694

                                  17
(III) (B). “This burden is a heavy one[.]” (Citation omitted.)Young v.

State, 305 Ga. 92, 97 (5) (823 SE2d 774) (2019). And if Hatcher fails

to prove either the deficiency or the prejudice prong, this Court need

not examine the other prong of the Strickland test. See Palmer v.

State, 303 Ga. 810, 816 (IV) (814 SE2d 718) (2018).

     Pretermitting whether trial counsel was constitutionally

deficient in his failure to object to Routh’s qualifications to give fiber-

evidence testimony or his failure to rebut that testimony with the

GBI fiber-evidence report, Hatcher has failed to show a reasonable

probability that, in the absence of counsel’s allegedly deficient

performance, the outcome of his trial would have been different. See

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (III) (B). First, counsel effectively

challenged Routh’s testimony in other ways, and second, the State’s

case against Hatcher was strong even without Routh’s testimony.

     On cross-examination, Routh admitted that what he believed

were fibers on the gun could have come from other sources, including

the scarf Dashea was found wearing around her neck. GBI forensic

witnesses testified that they – unlike Routh – had found blood and

                                    18
a number of partial latent finger prints on the gun, but none of those

witnesses testified concerning the presence of fibers. A witness also

testified that is was possible that fingerprint evidence may have

been compromised by the investigators who initially handled the

weapon. Thus, Routh’s testimony that he saw fibers on the gun was

not conclusive evidence that the gun had been “wiped down.”

Finally, although Hatcher’s expert, Robinson, was disqualified from

giving testimony about alleged blood spatter on the gun, he was not

disqualified from testifying that he did not believe Routh’s

ultraviolet system images showed the presence of fibers on the gun.

Based on this evidence, defense counsel argued that Routh was

speculating as to presence of and source of any fibers, that he “didn’t

know what he was doing[,] and the State didn’t have the proper

controls in place to stop that evidence [derived from the gun] from

being tainted.” Thus, the record shows that Routh’s testimony

concerning the presence of fibers on the gun and his opinion that the

gun had been “wiped down” was, indeed, challenged.

     But, even if the jury credited Routh’s opinion testimony that

                                  19
Hatcher had wiped evidence from the gun, that testimony was not

critical to proving that Hatcher shot Dashea. The record shows that

several witnesses testified that Dashea did not appear suicidal to

them. They testified that Dashea sought treatment for her post-

partum depression, she loved her son, she was happy to be a mother,

and she was actively packing to move to South Carolina to be with

family who were supportive of her. She told a friend that she would

not kill herself because that would mean leaving her son with

Hatcher. The record also shows that Dashea planned to divorce

Hatcher. She was “fed up” with his drinking, his dishonesty, and his

infidelities. Hatcher, on the other hand, was an admitted cheater

and liar who had a motive to kill his wife. He wanted out of his

marriage, but he did not want to pay child support or alimony. In

fact, he tried to sell his parental rights to his child’s grandmother.

     The jury also heard expert forensic testimony from which they

could infer that it was unlikely that Dashea had shot herself while

sitting in bed, holding her baby, as Hatcher had testified. As the

prosecutor argued in closing, in order for Dashea, who was right-

                                  20
handed, to inflict the fatal injury that she suffered, she would have

had to reach across her body with her right hand and over or around

her baby with a loaded firearm and then twist either her head or her

hand to aim the gun at her left cheek. Although it is possible that

Dashea shot herself with her non-dominant hand, the evidence

shows that Dashea’s left hand rested on top of her left hip and not

next to her head. And the gun, which had very little blood on it, was

found lying in the middle Dashea’s abdomen instead of near her

head or on the left side of her body.

     The State argued, based on the following evidence, that it was

more likely that Hatcher had shot Dashea during an altercation in

the bedroom and then staged the scene to make it appear that

Dashea had committed suicide. Hatcher testified that, during a

heated argument about his cheating, Dashea struck him repeatedly

and yelled at him. The prosecutor argued that the forensic evidence

was consistent with the shooting having occurred during a struggle,

not while Dashea was sitting in bed with her son on her lap. For

example, a shell casing was on the floor to the left side of the bed;

                                  21
one unfired round was beneath Dashea’s body and another at the

foot of the bed; no blood spatter was on Dashea’s cell phone; and

someone had likely cleared the gun of the round in the chamber after

it had been fired. Hatcher also had gunpowder residue on his hands,

which was inconsistent with his testimony that he was not in close

proximity to the gun when it was fired and that, after he ran into

the Dashea’s bedroom, he just slid the gun away from M. H. with

two fingers. Although there was no blood spatter on Hatcher, the

record supports an inference that he had time to stage the scene and

change clothes before he called the police.

     In light of the challenges counsel did make against Routh’s

testimony as well as the strength of the State’s case against Hatcher

even apart from Routh’s testimony, Hatcher has failed to carry his

burden of showing a reasonable probability that the jury would not

have found him guilty of the crimes charged. The jury had ample

evidence from which to conclude that Hatcher and Dashea argued

and that Dashea’s death occurred as a result of an aggravated

assault by an admittedly unfaithful husband who wanted out of his

                                 22
marriage without having to pay alimony and child support.

Consequently, because Hatcher has failed to show a reasonable

probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different

in the absence of his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance, his

claim of ineffective assistance fails. See, e.g., Moss v. State, 311 Ga.

123, 126, 128 (2) (a) (856 SE2d 280) (2021) (Pretermitting whether

trial counsel was constitutionally deficient in his failure to introduce

gunshot residue and fingerprint reports, considering the totality of

the evidence, the defendant failed to show a reasonable probability

that, in the absence of the alleged deficient performance, the

outcome of the trial would have been different.); Revere v. State, 302

Ga. 44, 48-49 (2) (a) (805 SE2d 69) (2017) (Counsel’s deficient

performance in failing to object to certain character evidence was

not prejudicial because, considering the totality of the evidence,

there was no reasonable probability that, in the absence of that

deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been

different.).

     Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

                                  23