Summary
This Supreme Court of Georgia opinion addresses a defendant's appeal of his felony murder and related convictions. The appellate court reviews two evidentiary rulings: the trial court's restriction on cross-examining a detective regarding statements made during an excluded police interview, and the prohibition against questioning the detective about the potential age of fingerprint evidence as lay opinion. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the court holds that the trial court reasonably limited the scope of cross-examination to enforce its in limine order and properly excluded speculative lay testimony on fingerprint dating. The convictions are affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting Routh’s cross‑examination of Detective Thomas regarding the detective’s statement about Routh’s guilt.
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding Detective Thomas’s lay opinion on when the fingerprints could have been left, under OCGA Rule 701.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion; its limitation on cross‑examination was reasonable given the order in limine and the need to keep the excluded interview out of the record.
- The trial court correctly excluded the lay opinion because the question required scientific or technical expertise beyond lay knowledge.
Key quotations
“The trial court here did not abuse its discretion when it restricted defense counsel’s cross‑examination of Detective Thomas.”
“Detective Thomas … could not offer an opinion on the question because determining the age of fingerprints requires scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.”
Factual background
In September 2017 a robbery‑related shooting at a convenience store left two victims dead. Fingerprints recovered from the victims' car were matched to Routh. Cell‑phone location data placed a device associated with Routh near the scene before the shooting. Routh was tried, convicted of several counts, and sentenced to two life terms plus 35 years.
Procedural history
Routh was convicted of felony murder and related offenses in Fulton Superior Court. He filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. He appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in limiting cross‑examination of a detective and in excluding lay opinion testimony about the age of fingerprints.