Terrell Edmondson v. State

SECOND DIVISION
RICKMAN, P. J.,
GOBEIL and DAVIS, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

February 9, 2026

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A25A1898. EDMONDSON v. THE STATE.

DAVIS, Judge.

A Floyd County jury found Terrell Edmondson guilty of aggravated battery,

exploitation of a disabled adult, and the commission of an unlawful act of violence in

a penal institution, all in connection with allegations that Edmondson severely injured

his cellmate at the Floyd County Jail. On appeal, Edmondson argues that the evidence

was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion

by allowing the State to present hearsay evidence from the victim’s friend. Upon a

close review of the facts and the relevant law, we affirm Edmondson’s convictions and

the denial of his motion for new trial.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts,1 the evidence at trial

shows that Edmondson and Manuel Finley were cellmates in the maximum security

section of the Floyd County Jail. Finley was approximately sixty years old and suffered

from diabetes as well as numerous physical limitations following a recent stroke.

Finley occupied the lower bunk of the cell while Edmondson occupied the top bunk.

Inmates in the maximum security section are confined to their cells for 23 hours each

day, and the cells do not have security cameras inside.

On the morning of May 29, 2023, prison guards arrived to transfer Finley to

another cell when they found him lying on the cell floor in his underwear. The guards

placed Finley in a wheelchair and transported him to the jail’s medical unit. On the

way, the guards noticed that Finley had visible bruising on his head and around his

eyes as well as blood on his lip and redness across his ribs. A guard also noticed that

Finley’s back and left ear were swollen and discolored. No injuries were observed on

Edmondson.

The jail’s medical personnel decided to transfer Finley to the hospital for

further evaluation. While in transport, Finley told the personnel that he had slipped

1
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2
on the floor and fallen. At the hospital, a nurse noted swelling on the left side of

Finley’s face, and she noted that Finley possibly had a collapsed lung because he was

short of breath, had pain in his left rib area, and because the nurse detected air leakage

under the skin near his ribs. Finley told the nurse that another inmate had stomped on

his chest and kicked him in the face. A trauma surgeon evaluated Finley and

concluded that he had a collapsed lung, multiple rib fractures, and multiple transverse

process spinal fractures. The surgeon concluded that the injuries were consistent with

blunt force trauma, noting that such injuries are commonly caused by car accidents or

assaults. The surgeon opined that, while a fall could potentially cause similar injuries,

the combination and distribution of Finley’s injuries made it very unlikely that they

were caused by a simple fall from standing height.

The State also presented evidence from Regina Jackson, who lived with Finley

before his incarceration and was Finley’s longtime friend.2 Jackson testified that

Finley told her that he had taken Edmondson’s Rice Krispies bar, Edmondson threw

water on the floor causing him to slip, and Edmondson then beat him up and stomped

2
The State provided pre-trial notice to Edmondson that it intended to present
Jackson’s hearsay testimony and that it sought to admit the testimony under the
residual hearsay exception, OCGA § 24-8-807.
3
on him despite his repeated pleas asking Edmondson to stop. Finley told Jackson that

it had taken jail personnel over an hour after the incident to check the cell.

A grand jury indicted Edmondson on one count of aggravated battery (OCGA

§ 16-5-24), one count of exploiting a disabled adult (OCGA § 16-5-102 (a)), and one

count of committing an unlawful act of violence in a penal institution (OCGA § 16-10-

56). The jury found Edmondson guilty on all counts, and the trial court sentenced

Edmondson to a total of twenty years, with eight to serve. Edmondson filed a motion

for new trial, which the trial court denied after a hearing. This appeal followed.

1. Edmondson first argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient

to support his convictions because the State failed to disprove the hypothesis that

Finley sustained his injuries from a fall rather than an assault. Edmondson contends

that the State relied on circumstantial evidence and that Finley’s conflicting

statements about the incident rendered the evidence unreliable. We conclude that the

evidence was sufficient to support his convictions.

When evaluating the constitutional sufficiency of evidence, the proper
standard of review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court views the

4
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the
jury’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence.

Adams v. State, 317 Ga. 342, 347–48(1) (893 SE2d 85) (2023) (citation modified).

A person is guilty of aggravated battery when he “maliciously causes bodily

harm to another by depriving [him] of a member of [his] body, by rendering a member

of [his] body useless, or by seriously disfiguring [his] body or a member thereof.”

OCGA § 16-5-24(a). Additionally, “[a]ny person who . . . willfully inflicts physical

pain [and] physical injury . . . upon a disabled adult . . . shall be guilty” of exploitation

and intimidation of a disabled adult. OCGA § 16-5-102(a).3 Finally, “[n]o person

legally confined to a penal institution shall commit an unlawful act of violence or any

other act in a violent or tumultuous manner in a penal institution.” OCGA § 16-10-

56(b).

Here, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find

Edmondson guilty of these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury heard

3
A “disabled adult” is relevantly defined as “a person 18 years of age or older
who is mentally or physically incapacitated[.]” OCGA § 16-5-100(3). “Mentally or
physically incapacitated,” in turn, is defined as “an impairment which substantially
affects an individual’s ability to [p]rovide personal protection; [p]rovide necessities,
. . . ; [c]arry out the activities of daily living; or [m]anage his or her resources.” OCGA
§ 16-5-100(7.1).
5
testimony that Finley was an inmate in a penal institution that had numerous physical

limitations following a recent stroke which impaired his ability to protect himself and

carry out basic daily activities on his own. Finley told a nurse that another inmate had

stomped on his chest and kicked him in the face, and he told Jackson that Edmondson

beat him up and stomped on him. Finley incurred multiple rib fractures and other

injuries to the front and back of his torso and pneumothorax area. The treating

physician concluded that Finley’s injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma,

noting that such injuries are commonly caused by car accidents or assaults. The

treating physician opined that, while a fall could potentially cause similar injuries, the

combination and distribution of Finley’s injuries made it very unlikely that they were

caused by a simple fall from standing height. This evidence was sufficient to support

Edmondson’s convictions. See Lindo v. State, 278 Ga. App. 228, 232–35(3) (628 SE2d

665) (2006) (evidence that the victim suffered substantial injuries, supported by

medical testimony that the injuries were most likely not caused by a fall, was sufficient

to support aggravated battery convictions).

Edmondson argues that the evidence was purely circumstantial and that it failed

to completely exclude the reasonable alternative hypothesis that Finley’s injuries were

6
caused by a mere slip and fall.4 However, Finley’s statement (relayed through

Jackson) that Edmondson stomped on him and kicked him constituted direct evidence

of Edmondson’s guilt. See Stubbs v. State, 265 Ga. 883, 885(2) (463 SE2d 686) (1995)

(“Direct evidence is that which is consistent with either the proposed conclusion or

its opposite,” whereas “circumstantial evidence is that which is consistent with both

the proposed conclusion and its opposite.”) (punctuation and emphasis omitted).

Where there is direct evidence of guilt, the State need not exclude every other

reasonable hypothesis. Robinson v. State, 309 Ga. 729, 731(1)(a) (848 SE2d 441)

(2020).5

Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support

Edmondson’s convictions.

4
See Adams, 317 Ga. at 348(1) (“[U]nder Georgia statutory law, to warrant a
conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent
with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save
that of the guilt of the accused.”).
5
In any event, the jury was entitled to believe the testimony of the treating
surgeon and Finley’s statements to others, particularly his statements after he was
separated from Edmondson and was no longer in the same room as him. Given the
extent and nature of the injuries, as well as the corroborating evidence, the jury could
reasonably conclude that Finley did not merely fall on his own.
7
2. Edmondson also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by

allowing Jackson to testify about Finley’s out-of-court statement identifying him as the

individual who assaulted him. He contends that the statement was inadmissible

hearsay that lacked the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness required by the

residual hearsay exception, OCGA § 24-8-807, and that the admission of Jackson’s

testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. We ultimately discern

no abuse of discretion in the admission of Jackson’s testimony.

We review a trial court’s decision to admit hearsay evidence under OCGA § 24-

8-807 for abuse of discretion. Tanner v. State, 301 Ga. 852, 856(1) (804 SE2d 377)

(2017). The residual hearsay exception allows admission of a statement not otherwise

specifically covered by statute if it has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of

trustworthiness” and if the trial court determines that (1) it is offered as evidence of

a material fact; (2) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any

other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (3)

the general purposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice will best be

served by admission of the statement into evidence. OCGA § 24-8-807.

Our Supreme Court has cautioned that an appellate court should be
“particularly hesitant to overturn a trial court’s admissibility ruling

8
under the residual hearsay exception absent a definite and firm
conviction that the court made a clear error of judgment in the
conclusion it reached based upon a weighing of the relevant factors.

Brooks v. State, 365 Ga. App. 711, 726-27(6) (880 SE2d 226) (2022) (quotation marks

omitted).

First, we conclude that the first two prongs of the statute are met. Jackson’s

testimony was offered as evidence of material facts as to what transpired between

Finley and Edmondson, and her testimony was more probative than the nurse’s

testimony as to what Finley told her because it was a private statement by the victim

to a trusted confidante and because Jackson’s testimony provided many key details

(such as identifying Edmondson as the inmate that attacked Finley) that were lacking

in Finley’s statement to the nurse. See Rai v. State, 297 Ga. 472, 477(2) (775 SE2d

129) (2015)(defendant’s contemporaneous, detailed statement to a close family

member was more probative than other admissible, but less complete accounts);

Brooks, 365 Ga. App. at 727(6) (same). Furthermore, although the residual hearsay

exception does not expressly require that the declarant be unavailable, availability is

relevant to the question of whether the State used reasonable efforts to obtain more

probative evidence. See State v. Hamilton, 308 Ga. 116, 126(4)(b) (839 SE2d 560)

9
(2020) (“[A]vailability re-enters the analysis of whether or not to admit statements

into evidence because of the requirement that the proponent use reasonable efforts to

procure the most probative evidence on the points sought to be proved.”) (citation

modified). Here, there was evidence in the record that Finley was unavailable as a

witness because, due to his prior medical impairments as well as his injuries from the

incident involving Edmondson, he was on a ventilator, his condition rapidly

deteriorated when removed from it, and no improvement in his condition was

expected. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that

the first two prongs of the statute were met.

Additionally, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by

concluding that Jackson’s testimony had “circumstantial guarantees of

trustworthiness” that are equivalent to statements that are admissible under other

portions of the hearsay statute. As noted above, Jackson lived with Finley for many

years, and the two shared a close relationship. Rai, 297 Ga. at 477-78(2) (victim’s

statement to close family confidantes had indicia of trustworthiness). Finley also made

the statement to Jackson within a day or two of his hospitalization while the incident

was still fresh in his mind. Jackson’s testimony was also consistent with Finley’s

10
statement to the nurse as well as the nature of his injuries. Although Jackson was

inconsistent as to whether Finley made the statement at home or at the hospital, this

minor discrepancy does not sufficiently undermine the statement’s overall reliability

so as to be inadmissible. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude

that the trial court acted within its discretion when it admitted Jackson’s statement

under the residual hearsay exception.

Finally, we reject Edmondson’s claim that the admission of Jackson’s statement

violated the Confrontation Clause. The Clause only applies to statements that are

“testimonial” — that is, when the primary purpose of the statement is to establish

evidence for future prosecution. Tanner, 301 Ga. at 857(2). Finley’s statement to a

close friend in a private setting was not made for that purpose, and so its admission did

not run afoul of the Confrontation Clause. See id. (victims’ statements to his mother

after the incident were not testimonial in nature, and so the Confrontation Clause did

not apply to bar their admission into evidence).

Accordingly, we affirm Edmondson’s convictions and the denial of his motion

for new trial.

Judgment affirmed. Rickman, P. J., and Gobeil, J., concur.

11