Robinson v. State

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

Decided: March 3, 2026

S26A0282. ROBINSON v. THE STATE.

PINSON, Justice.

David Robinson was convicted of malice murder and other

crimes in connection with the shooting death of Jalal Ross-Beyah

one night at a strip club in Atlanta. 1 On appeal, he contends that the

trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial. Because this

claim was not preserved for appellate review, we affirm.

1 The crimes occurred in the early morning hours of October 14, 2017.

Less than a year later, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Robinson on nine
counts: malice murder (Count 1), felony murder (Counts 2–4), aggravated
assault with a deadly 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 2019, a jury returned a guilty verdict on all
counts. The trial court sentenced Robinson to life without parole for murder
plus 15 years to be served consecutively for possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. The remaining counts merged or were vacated by operation of
law for sentencing purposes.
Robinson timely filed a motion for new trial in September 2019, which
he subsequently amended in May 2025. The court denied Robinson’s motion
for new trial in August 2025, and he timely appealed to this Court, where his
case was docketed to the term beginning in December 2025 and submitted for
a decision on the briefs.
Before his trial, Robinson moved to exclude testimony of Al-

Kareem Smith, who was at the club that night and knew the victim.

The court ruled that Smith could testify in a “limited fashion” that

on the night of the shooting he was at the club, heard gunshots, and

then ran inside. At trial, Smith testified along those lines, but then

said that while he was standing outside the lot, a friend of Ross-

Beyah’s saw him and ran up to him, and said “Kareem, that was Lal.

… [T]hey killed Jalal, he shot Jalal.” Robinson objected on hearsay

grounds, and after additional testimony, he objected again.2

After a discussion at the bench, the court asked the jury to

leave the courtroom, and the court and the parties discussed at

length whether Smith’s testimony was within the limited scope of

the court’s ruling on the pretrial motion in limine. Robinson then

moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion and said that it

would give the jury a curative instruction. Robinson argued that the

court could not “unring the bell,” to which the court replied, “you’ve

2 The nature of Robinson’s second objection is not apparent from the

record.

2
made the motion. I’ve denied it.… and we’ll see.” The jury came back,

and the court instructed the jury that it had been “misled” by the

State about the nature of Smith’s testimony, and that the jury

should disregard his testimony about “any conversation [Smith] had

with anybody or any statement that was made that evening.” The

jurors were then polled and none indicated that they would not be

able to disregard the testimony.

Robinson now claims on appeal that the trial court should have

granted a mistrial, but he failed to preserve this claim for appellate

review. To do that, a defendant must first move for a mistrial at the

earliest opportunity to do so. Bates v. State, 317 Ga. 809, 818 (2023).

If the trial court denies that motion and does not give any curative

instruction to the jury, the claim is preserved for appellate review.

Id. On the other hand, if the trial court denies the motion but then

gives a curative instruction, the defendant must do more to preserve

any error for review: after the instruction is given, he must renew

his motion for mistrial, and get a definitive ruling on the motion. Id.

Even assuming Robinson moved for a mistrial at the earliest

3
opportunity, 3 he failed to follow up on his motion after the court gave

its curative instruction. Although Robinson argued that the court

could not “unring the bell,” Robinson did not renew his motion for

mistrial at any point after the instruction was given. So this claim

is not preserved for our review. See Hartsfield v. State, 294 Ga. 883,

886 (2014) (holding that defendant’s mistrial claim was waived on

appeal because he failed to renew his motion after the court’s

admonishment and curative instruction); McCoy v. State, 273 Ga.

3 Instead of moving for a mistrial when Smith first broached the subject

of Brown’s statements, Robinson only lodged a hearsay objection. It was not
until after the State continued its direct examination of Smith to lay the
foundation for the hearsay statements that Robinson objected and eventually
moved for a mistrial. 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 ruling — Robinson arguably waived this issue
on appeal. Thomas v. State, 310 Ga. 579, 581 (2020) (quotation marks omitted).
Compare Bates, 317 Ga. at 819 (stating that appellant made a
“contemporaneous motion” when he objected “as soon as” the witness testified
about the prohibited topic and then asked for the jury to be excused and moved
for a mistrial) with Pittman v. State, 318 Ga. 819, 829 (2024) (holding that the
issue of the trial court denying a mistrial was not preserved for appeal when
defendant “did not object to the State’s question, which clearly was intended to
elicit the testimony discussed at the pretrial hearings, and did not move to
strike [the witness’s] answer, and then waited until after the prosecutor
completed the direct examination to make a motion for mistrial”) and
Kilpatrick v. State, 308 Ga. 194, 199–200 (2020) (concluding that the mistrial
issue was waived on appeal when the motion was made after the witness
testified and the pertinent evidence had been admitted).
4
568, 572 (2001) (concluding that defendant failed to preserve his

mistrial claim when he failed to renew his motion for mistrial); Ford

v. State, 269 Ga. 139, 141 (1998) (same); Woodham v. State, 263 Ga.

580, 580 (1993) (citing decisions reaching the same conclusion).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

5

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

Decided: March 3, 2026

S26A0282. ROBINSON v. THE STATE.

PINSON, Justice.

David Robinson was convicted of malice murder and other

crimes in connection with the shooting death of Jalal Ross-Beyah

one night at a strip club in Atlanta. 1 On appeal, he contends that the

trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial. Because this

claim was not preserved for appellate review, we affirm.

1 The crimes occurred in the early morning hours of October 14, 2017.

Less than a year later, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Robinson on nine
counts: malice murder (Count 1), felony murder (Counts 2–4), aggravated
assault with a deadly 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 2019, a jury returned a guilty verdict on all
counts. The trial court sentenced Robinson to life without parole for murder
plus 15 years to be served consecutively for possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. The remaining counts merged or were vacated by operation of
law for sentencing purposes.
Robinson timely filed a motion for new trial in September 2019, which
he subsequently amended in May 2025. The court denied Robinson’s motion
for new trial in August 2025, and he timely appealed to this Court, where his
case was docketed to the term beginning in December 2025 and submitted for
a decision on the briefs.
Before his trial, Robinson moved to exclude testimony of Al-

Kareem Smith, who was at the club that night and knew the victim.

The court ruled that Smith could testify in a “limited fashion” that

on the night of the shooting he was at the club, heard gunshots, and

then ran inside. At trial, Smith testified along those lines, but then

said that while he was standing outside the lot, a friend of Ross-

Beyah’s saw him and ran up to him, and said “Kareem, that was Lal.

… [T]hey killed Jalal, he shot Jalal.” Robinson objected on hearsay

grounds, and after additional testimony, he objected again.2

After a discussion at the bench, the court asked the jury to

leave the courtroom, and the court and the parties discussed at

length whether Smith’s testimony was within the limited scope of

the court’s ruling on the pretrial motion in limine. Robinson then

moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion and said that it

would give the jury a curative instruction. Robinson argued that the

court could not “unring the bell,” to which the court replied, “you’ve

2 The nature of Robinson’s second objection is not apparent from the

record.

2
made the motion. I’ve denied it.… and we’ll see.” The jury came back,

and the court instructed the jury that it had been “misled” by the

State about the nature of Smith’s testimony, and that the jury

should disregard his testimony about “any conversation [Smith] had

with anybody or any statement that was made that evening.” The

jurors were then polled and none indicated that they would not be

able to disregard the testimony.

Robinson now claims on appeal that the trial court should have

granted a mistrial, but he failed to preserve this claim for appellate

review. To do that, a defendant must first move for a mistrial at the

earliest opportunity to do so. Bates v. State, 317 Ga. 809, 818 (2023).

If the trial court denies that motion and does not give any curative

instruction to the jury, the claim is preserved for appellate review.

Id. On the other hand, if the trial court denies the motion but then

gives a curative instruction, the defendant must do more to preserve

any error for review: after the instruction is given, he must renew

his motion for mistrial, and get a definitive ruling on the motion. Id.

Even assuming Robinson moved for a mistrial at the earliest

3
opportunity, 3 he failed to follow up on his motion after the court gave

its curative instruction. Although Robinson argued that the court

could not “unring the bell,” Robinson did not renew his motion for

mistrial at any point after the instruction was given. So this claim

is not preserved for our review. See Hartsfield v. State, 294 Ga. 883,

886 (2014) (holding that defendant’s mistrial claim was waived on

appeal because he failed to renew his motion after the court’s

admonishment and curative instruction); McCoy v. State, 273 Ga.

3 Instead of moving for a mistrial when Smith first broached the subject

of Brown’s statements, Robinson only lodged a hearsay objection. It was not
until after the State continued its direct examination of Smith to lay the
foundation for the hearsay statements that Robinson objected and eventually
moved for a mistrial. 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 ruling — Robinson arguably waived this issue
on appeal. Thomas v. State, 310 Ga. 579, 581 (2020) (quotation marks omitted).
Compare Bates, 317 Ga. at 819 (stating that appellant made a
“contemporaneous motion” when he objected “as soon as” the witness testified
about the prohibited topic and then asked for the jury to be excused and moved
for a mistrial) with Pittman v. State, 318 Ga. 819, 829 (2024) (holding that the
issue of the trial court denying a mistrial was not preserved for appeal when
defendant “did not object to the State’s question, which clearly was intended to
elicit the testimony discussed at the pretrial hearings, and did not move to
strike [the witness’s] answer, and then waited until after the prosecutor
completed the direct examination to make a motion for mistrial”) and
Kilpatrick v. State, 308 Ga. 194, 199–200 (2020) (concluding that the mistrial
issue was waived on appeal when the motion was made after the witness
testified and the pertinent evidence had been admitted).
4
568, 572 (2001) (concluding that defendant failed to preserve his

mistrial claim when he failed to renew his motion for mistrial); Ford

v. State, 269 Ga. 139, 141 (1998) (same); Woodham v. State, 263 Ga.

580, 580 (1993) (citing decisions reaching the same conclusion).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

5