DRYDEN v. STATE (2026)

Diandre Dryden was convicted of the malice murder of Latasha Smith.¹ On appeal, Dryden argues that the trial court violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree and affirm Dryden's conviction.

1. The evidence at trial showed the following. At 2:39 a.m. on the day of the crimes, the Gainesville Police Department received a 911 call reporting a nude woman lying in the grass at a local apartment complex. The caller self-identified as “Dwayne Green” and stated, “I see the lady walk out, lay down on the ground.” The caller described the woman as partially nude and noted that he was not close enough to tell if she was breathing. Responding law enforcement officers located Smith's body near the apartment complex's mailboxes. The temperature outside was around 30 degrees, and other than underwear around her ankles, Smith's “ice cold” body was nude and blood was on the left side of her face. Law enforcement officers were unable to detect a pulse or other sign of life in Smith's body. An autopsy showed that Smith died as a result of strangulation and blunt force head trauma.

Dryden, who lived in the apartment complex, approached the responding officers and inquired about what was happening. Dryden provided a false first name, but officers determined that Dryden's first name was Diandre and that he had an outstanding arrest warrant. Police then placed him under arrest. During a search of Dryden's apartment, investigators located bloody clothing on which Smith's DNA was found. Dryden's DNA was found under the fingernails of Smith's right hand. And investigators later confirmed that the 911 call originated from Smith's cell phone, which was located on Dryden's person at the time of his arrest. Location data placed Smith's phone in Dryden's apartment complex at the time the 911 call was made.²

2. In his sole enumeration of error, Dryden argues that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront a witness against him when it admitted what Dryden characterizes as testimonial hearsay in the 911 call by “Dwayne Green,” who did not testify at trial and whom Dryden was unable to cross examine. At trial, Dryden objected to admission of the 911 call only on authentication grounds, so we review this claim for plain error only. See OCGA § 24-1-103(d); Grier v. State, 313 Ga. 236, 240, 869 S.E.2d 423 (2022) (applying plain-error review to Confrontation Clause claim raised for first time on appeal). That means Dryden must identify a legal error that was “not affirmatively waived”; was “clear and not open to reasonable dispute”; that “affected his substantial rights”; and that “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Grier, 313 Ga. at 240–41, 869 S.E.2d 423. Dryden has not shown error, much less a clear and obvious one.

A Confrontation Clause violation occurs only if the challenged statements are “both hearsay and testimonial.” Gines v. State, 324 Ga. 46, 71, 928 S.E.2d 16 (2026). See also Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, 800, 144 S.Ct. 1785, 219 L.Ed.2d 420 (2024) (“To implicate the Confrontation Clause, a statement must be hearsay (‘for the truth’) and it must be testimonial—and those two issues are separate from each other.”). Of course, an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness being examined at trial is hearsay only when the statement is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Gines, 324 Ga. at 71–72, 928 S.E.2d 16; OCGA § 24-8-801(c). So, a statement not offered for the truth of the matter asserted is not hearsay and does not implicate the Confrontation Clause. Gines, 324 Ga. at 72, 928 S.E.2d 16. See also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (“The [Confrontation] Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.”).

Here, the 911 call was not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted because the State did not offer the call to prove that the caller's account was factually accurate. Instead, the State offered the call as evidence of Dryden's alleged effort to conceal his crime. The State expressly argued that Dryden was the 911 caller — the call was placed from Dryden's apartment complex and made from Smith's phone, which was found on Dryden's person when police arrested him — and that he alerted police to Smith's body because he “wanted to get in front of it.” In short, the State contended that the words spoken by the caller were untrue. And because the call was not introduced for the purpose of establishing the truth of the matter asserted, it is not hearsay, and the Confrontation Clause is not implicated. It follows, then, that Dryden has not shown a violation of the Confrontation Clause. See Campbell v. State, 320 Ga. 333, 353, 907 S.E.2d 871 (2024) (statement did not implicate Confrontation Clause when introduced not for the truth of the matter asserted but to show that co-defendant was changing his story to exculpate himself). See also Carter v. State, 302 Ga. 200, 204–05, 805 S.E.2d 839 (2017) (no Confrontation Clause violation where third party's out-of-court statements admitted to “provide the jury with a complete, coherent conversation and to give context to [the defendant's] inculpatory statements”). This claim fails, so we affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The crimes occurred on January 23, 2023. On February 15, 2023, a Hall County grand jury indicted Dryden for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. After a jury trial in March 2024, Dryden was found guilty of all counts as charged in the indictment. The court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for malice murder, and the remaining counts merged or were vacated by operation of law.Dryden filed a timely motion for a new trial on March 19, 2024, which was amended. The trial court denied the motion on June 10, 2025. Dryden then timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court, and his case was docketed to this Court's April 2026 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.

2.   The testimony concerning the precision of the location data is unclear, as the witness stated both that a call could be placed to a “particular address” as well as a specific “apartment complex.” There was also testimony that the location data traced the call to Dryden's specific unit in the apartment complex. Regardless, the testimony was clear that, at minimum, the 911 call was placed from Dryden's apartment complex. And any inconsistency does not matter for purposes of Dryden's sole enumeration of error, as explained below.

Bethel, Justice.

All the Justices concur, except Warren, P. J., not participating.