Hodges v. State

── Hodges v. State ── Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: May 19, 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. S26A0685 Jerry Hodges v. The State On Appeal from the Fulton County Superior Court No. 19SC166924 Decided: May 19, 2026 PETERSON, Chief Justice. Jerry Hodges appeals his convictions related to the shooting death of Malik Barry-Buchanan. 1 On appeal, Hodges 1 Barry-Buchanan was killed on March 16, 2007. In April 2019, a Fulton County grand jury returned an indictment charging Hodges with malice murder (Count 1), three counts of felony murder (Counts 2–4), armed robbery (Count 5), burglary (Count 6), aggravated assault (Count 7), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 8). At a jury trial in August 2022, the jury found Hodges guilty of all charges. The trial court sentenced Hodges to serve life in prison on Count 1, a consecutive twenty-year sentence on Count 5, a concurrent twenty-year sentence on Count 6, and a consecutive five-year sentence on Count 8. The remaining counts were either vacated by operation of law or merged for sentencing purposes. In August 2022, Hodges timely filed a motion for new trial, which he amended, and the trial court initially denied it an order entered on November 22, 2024. That same day, motion-for-new-trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw, saying that his employment with the Georgia Public Defender Council was ending, but no order permitting that withdrawal was entered, and no notice of appearance or timely notice of appeal was filed until February 2025, when appellate counsel filed a notice of appearance. The trial court entered a new order in October argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting video evidence from a police body camera showing him fleeing when he was pulled over, arguing that the video was substantially more unfairly prejudicial than probative under OCGA § 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”). Hodges also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on the ground that the State failed to provide proper notice of its intention to introduce evidence of flight that, he alleges, constituted other-acts evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) (“Rule 404(b)”). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video footage, which it limited to a ten-second clip that showed only Hodges’s face after he was arrested and was relevant to establish his identity as the person arrested by police. And because the evidence of flight was intrinsic evidence, the State was not obligated to provide notice, and so trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object to the lack of notice. We affirm. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the trial evidence showed the following. In March 2007, Christen Canada was dating Barry-Buchanan. On the night of March 16, Canada went to the two-level apartment in Fulton County where Barry-Buchanan lived with roo