Robinson v. The State - Murder Conviction Appeal Denied

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: Ma rch 3, 2026 S26A028 2. ROBINSON v. THE STATE. P INSON, Just ice. Davi d Robin son w as con victed of m ali ce murd er an d othe r crime s in co nnectio n with the shoo ting death of J al al Ross - Beyah on e night at a str ip club in A tlanta. 1 On appeal, he con tends th at th e tria l court erred by de nying his mo tion f or mistria l. Beca use this claim was n ot pr eserve d f or ap pellate rev iew, w e af fi rm. 1 The crimes occurred in the ear ly morning hours of Octobe r 14, 2017. Less than a ye ar lat er, a Fulton Co unty grand jury i ndicted Robinson on nine counts: malice murder (Count 1), felo ny murder (Counts 2 – 4), aggravated assault with a deadl y weapon (Counts 5 – 6), possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 7), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Counts 8 – 9). In September 20 19, a jury returned a g uilty verdict on all counts. The trial co urt sentenced R obinson to life wi thout parole f or murder plus 15 years t o be serve d consecutively for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. T he remai ning counts merged or were vacated by operati on of law for sentencing p urposes. Robinson timely file d a motion for ne w trial in Se ptember 2019, w hich he subsequently am ended i n May 2025. The court denied Robinson’s mo tion for new trial in August 2025, and he timely appeale d to this Court, where his case was docket ed t o the term b eginnin g in December 202 5 and submitte d for a decision on the bri efs. NOTICE: T his opini on is subje ct to mo dificat ion res ultin g from motion s for re consi derat ion unde r Supre me C ourt Rule 27, the Cour t’s reco nsiderat ion, and editorial revisions by th e Reporter of Decisions. The versi on of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geo rgia Repo rts, desi gnated as the “Final Copy, ” will r eplace an y prior version on the Court’s websi te and docket. A bound volu me of the Georgi a Reports will con tain the final a nd officia l text of t he opinio n.

2 Before h is tri al, Robin son m oved to excl ude t estim ony of Al - Karee m Smith, who wa s at the club tha t night a nd knew the victim. The co urt ruled that Smith could te stif y in a “limited fa shion” that on the night of the sho oting he wa s at the c lub, hea rd gunshot s, a nd then r an inside. At t rial, Smith t estifie d alo ng those line s, b ut the n said t hat while he was s tanding o utside the lot, a friend of Ross - Beyah ’s saw h im an d ran u p to hi m, and s aid “Ka reem, that w as Lal. … [T]he y killed Jalal, he shot Ja lal.” Robin son obje cted on he arsay groun ds, an d aft er ad dition al t esti mony, he object ed ag ain. 2 After a disc ussion at t he be nch, the court asked the jur y to leave the court room, and the c ou rt an d th e par ties discus sed at length w hethe r Smith’s tes timony was within the limite d sc ope of the c ourt’s r uling o n the p retrial m otio n in limine. Robins on the n moved f or a mis trial. The court d eni ed the m otion and sai d that i t would giv e the jury a cur ative ins truc tion. Robinson argued th at th e court could not “unring the b ell,” t o whic h the c ourt re plied, “you’ ve 2 The nature of Ro binson’s seco nd objection is not apparen t from the record.

3 made t he motion. I’ve denie d it.… and we’ ll see.” Th e ju ry c ame b ack, and t he co urt instr ucted t he jury that it had been “ misle d ” b y t he Sta te about the natur e of Smit h’ s testim ony, and tha t the jury should d isre gard his te stimo ny about “ any co nversatio n [Smit h] ha d with anybod y o r an y stat emen t th at was mad e th at eveni ng. ” The juro rs were t hen polle d and no ne indica ted tha t they would not b e able to di sregar d the tes timon y. Robins on now c laims o n app eal t hat the t rial co urt sho uld have grante d a mist ria l, but he fai led to preserv e t his cl ai m for app ellat e review. T o do th at, a d efend ant mu st fi rst mov e for a mi strial at th e earlies t opp ortu nity to do so. Bates v. State, 317 Ga. 809, 818 (2 023). I f the trial cou rt den ies that motion and do es n ot g ive any cu rati ve instr uctio n to the jury, the clai m i s pres erve d fo r a ppell ate revi ew. Id. On the other hand, if the trial c ourt denies t he motio n but then gives a curative i n structi on, the defenda nt must do more to p reserv e any err or fo r revi ew: af ter th e ins truct ion i s gi ven, h e mus t renew his motion for mi strial, an d get a definitive ruling o n the motion. Id. Even a ssuming Ro binson move d fo r a mi stri al at the ea rliest

4 opp ortunity, 3 he faile d to follow up on his m otion afte r the cou rt g a ve its c urative instructio n. Altho ugh Rob inson argued that t he court could not “unr ing the be ll,” Robins on did not re new his mot ion for mistr ial at any point after the instruct ion was given. So this claim is n ot preserv ed f or our rev iew. See H artsfield v. State, 294 Ga. 883, 886 (2014) (holding that defen dan t’s mistrial clai m was w aive d on appeal becaus e he failed to renew hi s m otion afte r th e c ourt ’s admo nishment and cur ative instructio n); McCoy v. State, 27 3 Ga. 3 Instead of moving f or a mistrial w hen Smith first broache d the subject of Brown’s stateme nts, Robinson onl y lodged a hearsay objection. It was n ot until after the State continued its dir ect examination of Smith to lay the foundation for the hearsay st atements t hat Robinson object ed and eventually moved for a mistr ial. By failing to “promptly” move for a mistrial once Smith testified about what Ross- Beyah’s friend said — that is, about something outside the scope of the pretrial ru ling — Robinson arguabl y waived this issue on appeal. Tho mas v. State, 31 0 Ga. 57 9, 581 (2020) (quotation marks o mitted). Compare Bates, 317 Ga. at 819 (stating that appellant made a “contemporaneous motion” when h e objected “as soon as” the witness testified about the prohibited topic and then asked for the jury to be excused an d moved for a mistrial) with Pittman v. State, 318 Ga. 819, 829 (2024) (holding that th e issue of the trial court denying a mistrial was not preserve d for appeal when defendant “did not o bject to the S tate ’ s q uestion, which cl early wa s intended to elicit the testimon y discuss ed at the p retrial hearings, an d did not m ove to strike [the witness’s] answer, an d then waited unt il after the prosecutor completed the dire ct examinatio n to make a mot ion for mistri al”) and Kilpatrick v. State, 3 08 Ga. 194, 199 – 2 00 (2020) (concluding that the mistri al issue was waived o n appeal when th e motion was mad e after the w itness testified and the per tinent evidence had been admitte d).

5 568, 57 2 (20 01) (conclu din g that def endan t fail ed to pres erve h is mistr ial claim when he faile d to r enew his mo tion for mis trial); Fo rd v. State, 2 69 G a. 13 9, 14 1 (199 8) (same); Woodham v. S tate, 263 Ga. 580, 58 0 (1993) (citing decision s re achin g th e same concl usi on). Judgment a ffi rmed. Al l the Just ices conc ur.