Kelly v. State

── Kelly v. State ── Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia No. S26A0469 David William Kelly v. The State On Appeal from the Dougherty County Superior Court No. 2017SUR1201 Decided: April 21, 2026 PETERSON, Chief Justice. David William Kelly appeals his convictions stemming from the shooting death of his wife, Diane Kelly.1 On appeal, Kelly argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court erred by (2) limiting Kelly’s voir dire examination of prospective jurors by excluding questions about suicide, (3) failing to rule formally on a hearsay objection, 1 The crimes took place on October 23, 2017. On December 27, 2017, a Dougherty County grand jury returned an indictment charging Kelly with malice murder (Count 1), felony murder (Count 2), aggravated assault (Count 3), and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 4). At a July 2019 trial, a jury found Kelly guilty of all counts. The trial court sentenced Kelly to life in prison without the possibility of parole on Count 1 and a consecutive sentence of five years in prison on Count 4. The remaining counts were vacated or merged for sentencing purposes. In October 2019, Kelly timely filed a motion for new trial, which he later amended in May 2023 with a supporting brief filed in September 2023. The trial court denied the motion following a hearing in September 2025. Kelly timely filed a notice of appeal, and the case was docketed to this Court’s term of court beginning in December 2025 and submitted for consideration on the briefs. 1 (4) failing to apply statutory requirements to that hearsay evidence, and (5) admitting irrelevant evidence. Kelly also argues that (6) his trial counsel was ineffective on several grounds. These claims fail, so we affirm. The trial evidence showed the following.2 On the early morning of October 23, 2017, Kelly called 911 to report that Diane had shot herself. When officers responded to the house, they found Diane lying on her back in her bed with a gunshot wound to the face and a .44 Magnum in her left hand. Diane had black residue on her left hand, but left no fingerprints on the gun. The gunshot wound was to the left of her nose just below the eye. The air still smelled like gun powder. The responding paramedic testified that he told the officer “somebody put that gun there,” because, despite being a former Marine, he had “almost broke[n] [his] wrist shooting” a .44 Magnum, and the recoil was very powerful. The gun was described at trial as “one of the heaviest firearms.” At the scene, a responding officer described Kelly as “calm,” sitting on the recliner drinking coffee. Kelly told the officer that he walked his dog early that morning, and when he returned, he discovered Diane had shot herself. The offic