Preview:

Final Copy 290 Ga. 412 S11A1827. BUTLER v. THE STATE. CARLEY, Presiding Justice. After a jury trial, Appellant Willie Bernard Butler, Jr. and his co-defendant Martin Holmes were found guilty of the malice murder and armed robbery of Rickey Gibson, the burglary of Gibson's and Alexis Yates' dwelling house, aggravated assault against their infant son Jordan Yates, the aggravated assault and kidnapping of Ms. Yates, two counts of possession of a firearm during commission of the crimes against Gibson and Ms. Yates, the burglary of Randy Manning's dwelling house, aggravated assault against Greg Pridgen, and hijacking Pridgen's motor vehicle. Holmes was also found guilty of possession of marijuana. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for murder and to various terms of years for the remaining crimes. A motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals.*

The crimes occurred on September 24, 2008, and the grand jury returned an indictment on August 5, 2009. The jury found Appellant guilty on October 2, 2009, and, on that same day, the trial court entered the judgments of conviction and sentences. The motion for new trial was filed on October 16, 2009, amended on December 3, 2010 and on March 3, 2011, and denied on May 4, 2011. Appellant filed the notice of appeal on May 27, 2011. The case was docketed in this Court for the September 2011 term and submitted for decision
*

1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdicts, the evidence shows that Appellant, Holmes, and at least two other young men, all of whom were carrying guns, broke into Gibson's and Ms. Yates' house, demanded money, put a handgun into the baby's mouth, hit Ms. Yates in the head with a gun, and forced her to go outside. Ms. Yates escaped with the baby, and the men shot Gibson multiple times, killing him. A shoe print near the house was consistent with the shoes that Appellant was wearing, and Ms. Yates later identified Holmes as one of the intruders. Gibson's gold watch was stolen during the home invasion and was left behind about two hours later in Manning's yard after his house was burglarized by Appellant and Holmes. Appellant defecated in the yard and cleaned himself with a bloody sock which tested positive for his DNA. Shortly afterwards, Appellant and Holmes entered Pridgen's car while it was running and he was delivering a newspaper. Pridgen fought with Appellant, who punched him several times and stabbed him. Police officers responded quickly and found Appellant and Holmes running down the street. Pridgen identified both of them as the perpetrators of the crimes against him. A search of a vehicle in which two

on the briefs.
2

of their co-indictees were riding revealed a bottle of pills belonging to Appellant's mother and a camera with pictures of Appellant and Holmes. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the parties. "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. [Cits.]" Herbert v. State, 288 Ga. 843, 845 (2) (708 SE2d 260) (2011). In exercising that discretion, the trial court must consider the following factors: "`(1) Will the number of defendants create confusion as to the law and evidence applicable to each? (2) Is there a danger that evidence admissible against one defendant will be considered against the other despite the court's instructions? (3) Are the defenses of the defendants antagonistic to each other or to each other's rights?' (Cit.)" [Cit.] Ward v. State, 288 Ga. 641, 644 (3) (706 SE2d 430) (2011). "There were only two defendants here, the law applicable to each defendant was substantially the same, and the evidence at trial showed that [Appellant] and [Holmes] acted together in" committing the jointly indicted
3

crimes. Herbert v. State, supra. Appellant argues that the evidence against him, especially as to the murder, was weak in comparison to the evidence against Holmes. "However, it is not enough for the defendant to show that he would have a better chance of acquittal at a separate trial or that the evidence against a co-defendant is stronger. [Cit.]" Herbert v. State, supra. See also Moon v. State, 288 Ga. 508, 510 (2) (705 SE2d 649) (2011). Appellant "has not pointed to any evidence admitted at his joint trial that would not have been admitted had his severance motion been granted and had he been tried alone." Morgan v. Mitchell, 272 Ga. 134, 137 (1) (527 SE2d 556) (2000). "As to . . . any `guilt by association,' the trial court instructed the jury . . . that it was not authorized to find a person guilty of a crime who was `merely associated' with other involved persons. [Cit.]" Denny v. State, 281 Ga. 114, 116 (1) (636 SE2d 500) (2006). [A]ppellant was being tried under the theory that he was a party to the [crimes] and "there was ample evidence to show that (he) was a party to the crime[s]." [Cit.] Where, as here, there is sufficient evidence of a "common scheme or plan" to commit . . . criminal offense[s], joinder is authorized and severance is not mandatory. [Cit.] Willingham v. State, 265 Ga. 435, 436 (2) (457 SE2d 561) (1995). Although Appellant also "claims on appeal that severance was warranted because [Holmes'] defense[ ] [was] antagonistic to his, [A]ppellant waived this
4

ground by failing to raise it in the trial court. [Cit.]" Thorpe v. State, 285 Ga. 604, 609 (4) (678 SE2d 913) (2009). Moreover, "neither [defendant] attempted to point the blame at the other[, and] . . . `unless there is a showing of resulting prejudice, antagonistic defenses do not automatically require a severance. (Cits.)' [Cit.]" Moon v. State, supra. Although Appellant complains that Holmes neither gave any statement nor testified, Appellant "has made no showing on appeal that [Holmes] could or would have provided exculpatory evidence." Denny v. State, supra. The defendant must show clearly that a joint trial prejudiced his defense, resulting in a denial of due process. [Cit.] [Appellant] made no such showing. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying [the] motion for a separate trial. Herbert v. State, supra. 3. Appellant urges that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress the pre-trial identification of Appellant by Pridgen during a one-on-one show-up at the police station. "`Although a one-on-one showup is inherently suggestive, identification testimony produced from the showup is not necessarily inadmissible.'" Scruggs v. State, 309 Ga. App. 569, 575 (4) (711 SE2d 86) (2011). In Sherwin v. State, 234 Ga. 592, 593 (216 SE2d 810) (1975), this Court held that, "[a]lthough as a
5

general rule a police station showup, as opposed to a conventional lineup, is not favored, `in each case it is necessary to look at the "totality of the circumstances." [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Matchett v. State, 190 Ga. App. 227 (2) (378 SE2d 404) (1989). See also Rogers v. State, 202 Ga. App. 595 (1) (415 SE2d 49) (1992). A police station show-up may be "permissible in aiding a speedy police investigation and because there were possible doubts as to the identification which needed to be resolved promptly and in order to enhance the accuracy and reliability of identification in order to permit the expeditious relief of innocent subjects. (Cits.)" [Cit.] Rogers v. State, supra at 596 (1). We generally first determine "whether the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. If the answer to that inquiry is negative, we need not consider the second question

Download S11A1827. BUTLER v. THE STATE.pdf

Georgia Law