Preview:

Final Copy 288 Ga. 435 S10A1644. BRINSON v. THE STATE. NAHMIAS, Justice. Nevarro Brinson and Temyarance Johnson, who were both Marine Corps reservists, were jointly tried for malice murder, conspiracy to commit murder, felony murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony stemming from the shooting death of Demarcus Waddell. Brinson and Johnson were convicted on all counts, and both were sentenced to life in prison for malice murder and to five consecutive years for the firearm offense, with the other convictions vacated or merged.1 We have already affirmed Johnson's convictions. See Johnson v. State, 287 Ga. 767 (700 SE2d 346) (2010). On appeal, Brinson contends, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Finding

The crimes occurred on November 27, 2005, and Brinson and Johnson were indicted on September 27, 2006. The jury found Brinson and Johnson guilty on November 15, 2006. The trial court sentenced the co-defendants that same day. Brinson filed a motion for new trial on December 6, 2006, and amended the motion on January 17, 2007. The trial court denied the motion on December 28, 2009, and Brinson filed a timely notice of appeal. The appeal was docketed for the September 2010 Term of this Court and submitted for decision on the briefs.

1

1

no merit to this contention or to the other issues Brinson raises, we affirm. 1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence, which is set forth in detail in Johnson, 287 Ga. at 767-768, authorized a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Brinson and Johnson conspired to kill Waddell because he had once dated and remained close friends with Johnson's girlfriend and that Brinson shot and killed Waddell in front of the pizza store where Waddell worked. The evidence therefore is sufficient to support the verdict. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 318-319 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2. Brinson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial from Johnson's. We disagree. In a murder case where the death penalty is not sought, the trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for severance. In ruling on a severance motion, the trial court should consider: (1) the likelihood of confusion of the evidence and law; (2) the possibility that evidence against one defendant may be considered against the other defendant; and (3) the presence or absence of antagonistic defenses. It is not enough for the defendant to show that he or she would have a better chance of acquittal at a separate trial or that the evidence against a co-defendant is stronger. Rather, the defendant must show clearly that a joint trial will prejudice his or her defense, resulting in a denial of due process. Krause v. State, 286 Ga. 745, 749 (691 SE2d 211) (2010) (citations omitted). 2

Brinson does not contend that there was a likelihood of confusion about the evidence and the law, and we conclude that he has failed to demonstrate that evidence admissible only against Johnson was considered against him. Brinson specifies as an example of such evidence Charlene Cole's testimony that Johnson told her that Brinson had the murder weapon in his possession on the weekend that the victim was murdered. This testimony, however, would have been admissible against Brinson in a separate trial, as Johnson's statements to Cole were non-testimonial statements of a co-conspirator made during the concealment phase of the conspiracy. See OCGA

Download S10A1644. BRINSON v. THE STATE.pdf

Georgia Law