Legree v. State

Decision Date28 February 2018
Docket NumberA17A1782
Citation812 S.E.2d 68
Parties LEGREE v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

344 Ga.App. 793
812 S.E.2d 68

LEGREE
v.
The STATE.

A17A1782

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

February 28, 2018


Debra Kay Jefferson, Lawrenceville, for Appellant.

Margaret Heap, Burt Anthony Burton, for Appellee.

Ray, Judge.

812 S.E.2d 69

Following a bench trial, Ronald R. Legree was convicted on one count of family violence battery. He appeals from his conviction, contending that the State failed to show that the victim and the eyewitness were unavailable to testify at trial and that the admission of their out-of-court statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Legree further contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that he had ineffective assistance of trial counsel. For the reasons that follow, we reverse Legree's conviction and remand for a new trial.

On appeal from a criminal conviction following a bench trial, the defendant "is no longer presumed innocent and all of the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the [trial court's] verdict." (Citation omitted.) Batten v. State , 295 Ga. 442, 443 (1), 761 S.E.2d 70 (2014).

Here, the evidence shows that on May 23, 2013, the Savannah–Chatham County police department received a 9–1–1 call from a woman identifying herself as "Ramona Legree," who was Legree's wife (hereinafter "the victim"). The victim was seeking police assistance because her husband, Legree, had just choked her. The victim stated that she just ran outside of the house and that she was currently hiding in the bushes because Legree was still walking around looking for her.

Approximately six minutes after the 9–1–1 call, a police officer arrived on the scene and encountered Legree alone outside the residence. The officer spoke briefly to Legree, then asked him to stand by while the officer went to speak with the victim, who was now inside the residence. Upon questioning, the victim informed the officer that she and Legree had gotten into an argument that had turned physical and that Legree had grabbed her by the throat and forced her down onto a couch. The officer observed what appeared to be the early onset of bruising on the victim's collar bone, which was consistent with being recently choked during an altercation. The officer then questioned the minor child who was in the residence, who stated that he had been awakened by the sound of his parents arguing and that he came out of his room and saw Legree on top of the victim with his hands around her throat, pushing her into the couch. The minor child also told the officer that his brother broke up the fight between Legree and the victim. Based on the statements that the police officer obtained from the victim and the minor child and the visible bruising on the victim's collar bone, the police officer determined that Legree was the primary aggressor and placed him under arrest.

Prior to the bench trial, the State provided Legree with notice of its intent to introduce the 9–1–1 recording as a business record pursuant to OCGA § 24-8-803 (6) and OCGA § 24-9-902 (11). The 9–1–1 recording was accompanied by several documents relating to the call, including a certification from the records custodian at the 9–1–1 communications center and a copy of the dispatch report (known as a CAD report). After a hearing, the trial court denied Legree's motion in limine seeking the exclusion of such evidence, finding that the recording was admissible as a business record and that statements made by the victim during the 9–1–1 call were nontestimonial because they were made during an ongoing emergency for the purpose of obtaining police assistance.

Neither the victim nor the minor child testified at the bench trial, and the State made no showing as to why they were not available. Rather, the State argued that the victim and the minor child's out-of-court statements to the police officer were nontestimonial and, thus, were not subject to constitutional scrutiny. Further, the State argued that the statements qualified as exceptions to the hearsay rule as present sense impressions under OCGA § 24-8-803 (1).

Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the police officer's testimony regarding the victim and the minor child's out-of-court statements was admissible. The police officer was the only witness to testify at trial. After considering the 9–1–1 recording and the police officer's testimony, the trial court found Legree guilty of family violence battery, and this appeal ensued.

812 S.E.2d 70

1. Legree first argues that his constitutional right to confront his accusers was violated when the State failed to show that the victim and the minor child were unavailable to testify at trial and their out-of-court statements to the police officer at the scene were admitted into evidence over objection. We agree.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I of the Georgia Constitution, guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him [.]" U.S. Constitution, Amend. VI ; see also Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XIV. In Crawford v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Hines
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 5 Agosto 2020
    ...it nevertheless guarantees "an opportunity for effective cross-examination") (emphasis supplied); see also Legree v. State , 344 Ga. App. 793, 797 (1), 812 S.E.2d 68 (2018) ("[T]he admission at trial of the victim's and the minor child's statements to the police officer infringed upon [the ......
  • Grimes v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 28 Junio 2022
    ...the very least, there was an intervening walk or drive" between the event and the time of the statement). Cf. Legree v. State , 344 Ga. App. 793, 798 (1), 812 S.E.2d 68 (2018) (holding that the trial court's admission of statements by the unavailable victim and her minor child to the respon......
  • Grimes v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 28 Junio 2022
    ... ... v. Manfre, 368 F.3d 832, 840 (II) (B) ... (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that statement was not a present ... sense impression when, "[a]t the very least, there was ... an intervening walk or drive" between the event and the ... time of the statement). Cf. Legree v. State, 344 ... Ga.App. 793, 798 (1) (812 S.E.2d 68) (2018) (holding that the ... trial court's admission of statements by the unavailable ... victim and her minor child to the responding officer ... infringed on appellant's rights under the Confrontation ... Clause, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT