State v. Gilmore

Decision Date16 June 2020
Docket NumberA20A0189
Citation355 Ga.App. 536,844 S.E.2d 877
Parties The STATE v. GILMORE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

355 Ga.App. 536
844 S.E.2d 877

The STATE
v.
GILMORE.

A20A0189

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 16, 2020


844 S.E.2d 878

Leigh E. Patterson, District Attorney, Morgan B. Bottger, Luke A. Martin, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellant.

Sean J. Lowe, J. Ross Hamrick, for appellee.

Mercier, Judge.

355 Ga.App. 536

David Lee Gilmore was charged with sale of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Prior to trial, the State filed motions to admit a video recording obtained by a confidential informant during a controlled drug buy involving Gilmore. The State asserted that the video recording was admissible pursuant to OCGA § 24-9-923 (b) because the confidential informant (i.e., the witness authenticating the evidence) was now deceased; and the recording was admissible

355 Ga.App. 537

pursuant to OCGA § 24-8-807 "under the residual hearsay exception" given the statement's "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." The trial court denied the motions, holding that the statements on the recording (both verbal and nonverbal), were testimonial and that Gilmore never had an opportunity to cross-examine the confidential informant regarding those statements, such that admitting the recording would violate the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. The State appeals.1 Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a trial court's decision on the admission of evidence for an abuse of

844 S.E.2d 879

discretion. Jenkins v. State , 303 Ga. 314, 316 (2), 812 S.E.2d 238 (2018).

The alleged facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal are as follows. Law enforcement officers with a drug task force suspected Gilmore of selling drugs and used a confidential informant to conduct a controlled buy of drugs from Gilmore. In July 2018, agents gave the confidential informant a $20 bill, attached a video camera to his key ring, and sent him to Gilmore's home to purchase drugs. The agents followed the confidential informant to the house, but they did not witness the encounter. Afterward, the confidential informant returned to the agreed-upon location, gave an agent a small bag of suspected methamphetamine, returned the video recording device to the agent, and left. Gilmore was later indicted on drug charges in connection with the controlled sale to the confidential informant.

In April 2019, prior to Gilmore's trial, the confidential informant committed suicide while in jail. The State then filed motions to admit the video recording at trial, asserting that the confidential informant's statements in the video are admissible under OCGA § 24-9-923 because the authenticating witness is unavailable, and under OCGA § 24-8-807 because the statements have guarantees of trustworthiness. Gilmore countered that admitting the recorded statements and movements of an unavailable confidential informant made during a controlled drug sale as part of a law enforcement drug investigation would violate the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution.

The State tendered the video recording at the hearing. It is undisputed that the video recording shows Gilmore handing the confidential informant a bag containing suspected methamphetamine and Gilmore thereafter holding a $20 bill, and that, while the recording includes audio, the quality is poor and any verbal

355 Ga.App. 538

statements made during the alleged transaction are indiscernible; in fact, the trial court stated that it "could not make out what they were saying on the video," as "it was mumbled." A police officer testified as to the reliability of the video recording.

The trial court found that the confidential informant's movements during the drug transaction constituted nonverbal testimonial statements, and that they were subject to exclusion under the Confrontation Clause. We agree.

1. "The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause provides: ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ This fundamental right is a bedrock procedural guarantee that applies to both federal and state prosecutions[.]" Freeman v. State , 329 Ga. App. 429, 433 (2), 765 S.E.2d 631 (2014) (citations and punctuation omitted).

[T]he Supreme Court of the United States clarified the ... meaning and scope of the right to confrontation of one's accusers in Crawford v. Washington [541 U. S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ], holding that when the admission of testimonial evidence is at issue the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. But when the statement at issue is nontestimonial in nature, the State's normal rules regarding the admission of hearsay apply.

Freeman , supra (citations and punctuation omitted); see also Pitts v. State , 280 Ga. 288, 627 S.E.2d 17 (2006). The Confrontation Clause does not "bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." Crawford , supra at 59 (IV), n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354. "[A]dmitting evidence in violation of a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights ‘is one of constitutional magnitude[.]’ " Freeman , supra at 437 (2), 765 S.E.2d 631.

It is undisputed that the witness in this case, the confidential informant, is unavailable and that Gilmore did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Thus, if the evidence at issue constitutes testimonial statements offered for the truth of the matter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 24 Agosto 2021
    ...Gilmore was a drug dealer and arranged for a CI to conduct a "controlled buy" of methamphetamine from him. See State v. Gilmore , 355 Ga. App. 536, 537-538, 844 S.E.2d 877 (2020). On July 20, 2018, officers attached a video camera to the CI's key ring, gave him a $20 bill, and sent him to G......
  • State v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 24 Agosto 2021
    ...that Gilmore was a drug dealer and arranged for a CI to conduct a "controlled buy" of methamphetamine from him. See State v. Gilmore, 355 Ga.App. 536, 537-538 (844 S.E.2d 877) (2020). On July 20, 2018, officers attached a video camera to the CI's key ring, gave him a $20 bill, and sent him ......
  • State v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 27 Enero 2022
    ...Morgan Birdsong Bottger, for Appellant.Sean Justin Lowe, Jonathan Ross Hamrick, for Appellee. Mercier, Judge.In State v. Gilmore , 355 Ga. App. 536, 844 S.E.2d 877 (2020), this Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the State's motions to admit a video recording of a controlled drug buy......
  • State v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 27 Enero 2022
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Torts
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 74-1, September 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...App. 525, 532, 843 S.E.2d 613, 619-20 (2020) (hereinafter Alston & Bird II); see O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(b) (2020).27. Alston & Bird II, 355 Ga. App. at 536, 843 S.E.2d at 622.28. Id. at 534, 843 S.E.2d at 620; see O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(b).29. Alston & Bird II, 355 Ga. App. at 534, 843 S.E.2d at ......
  • Evidence
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 72-1, September 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...24-8-804 (2019).62. Allison, 356 Ga. App. 258, 846 S.E.2d at 226.63. Id. at 259, 846 S.E.2d at 227.64. Id. at 260, 846 S.E.2d at 227.65. 355 Ga. App. 536, 844 S.E.2d 877 (2020).66. Id. at 538-39, 844 S.E.2d at 880.67. Id. at 536-37, 844 S.E.2d at 878.68. Id. at 539, 844 S.E.2d at 879.69. Id......

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