State v. Harris

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that it had jurisdiction over the State's appeals from oral pretrial rulings excluding evidence and suppressing an identification, because the record showed that the trial court refused to enter requested written orders. The Court further held that the State's appeal was timely, vacated the exclusion of evidence concerning two prior incidents because the trial court applied an incorrect Rule 403 standard, and vacated suppression of the identification because the trial court's application of the governing standard could not be determined.

Holdings

1. The State may appeal an oral ruling when the record affirmatively shows that the State requested a written order and the trial court refused to enter one; the refusal need not appear only in the hearing transcript.
2. When no written order exists, the two-day filing period under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) (A) begins when the trial court refuses the State's request for a written order, as determined through a case-specific inquiry into when the refusal occurred.
3. The trial court erred by applying an incorrect Rule 403 standard when it excluded evidence of the Almond Incident and Hank Aaron Incident; relevant evidence may be excluded only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or another listed danger.
4. Although the use of a single photograph was impermissibly suggestive, suppression requires a substantial likelihood of misidentification, assessed under the totality of the circumstances; the trial court's ruling was vacated because it was unclear whether the court applied that standard and considered Ndetti's prior familiarity with Harris.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court of Georgia had jurisdiction over the State's appeals from oral pretrial rulings that were not memorialized in written orders.
2. Whether the State's notices of appeal were timely under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) when the trial court refused to enter requested written orders.
3. Whether the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard under Rule 403 when excluding evidence of the Almond Incident and Hank Aaron Incident.
4. Whether the trial court properly suppressed Ndetti's out-of-court identification after a single-photograph procedure, particularly whether it considered the substantial-likelihood-of-misidentification requirement and Ndetti's familiarity with Harris.

Disposition

vacated