Akintoye v. State
340 Ga. App. 777
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Akintoye, tried by jury, convicted of multiple counts: theft by taking, theft by deception, exploitation of elderly, one RICO count, and three money‑laundering counts; convictions affirmed on appeal.
- Prosecution's theory: Akintoye conspired with Lizabeth Crawford to defraud elderly victims by directing them to wire funds to Crawford, who then withdrew and transferred most funds to Akintoye or others; Crawford retained small fees.
- Three principal victims: D.R. (wired $25,000 and $10,000 after romance scam), J.M. (91, wired $6,250 after a grandson impersonation scam), and J.R. (82, wired $6,500 after a similar impersonation); surveillance, bank records, and text messages tied transfers to Crawford and deposits into Akintoye’s account.
- Money‑laundering counts required proof (per OCGA § 7‑1‑915): knowledge that funds were illicit, conducting/attempting a currency transaction involving proceeds, using the proceeds, and intent to promote the unlawful activity; court found evidence satisfied each element.
- Procedural posture: Akintoye appealed the denial of his new‑trial motion, arguing (inter alia) insufficient evidence, Confrontation Clause/hearsay errors, improper exhibits sent to jury, improper expert testimony about other acts, and ineffective assistance for failing to preserve the voir dire record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (theft, deception, elder exploitation, RICO) | State: circumstantial and direct evidence (wires, withdrawals, text messages, Crawford’s testimony) established co‑conspirator liability and predicate acts for RICO | Akintoye: evidence insufficient to prove his participation or that transactions were proceeds of unlawful activity | Affirmed — jury could find Akintoye conspired with Crawford and was a party to the charged offenses, supporting convictions including RICO |
| Money‑laundering statutory elements (OCGA § 7‑1‑915) | State: statute requires knowledge, transaction, use of proceeds, and intent to promote; proved by pattern of deposits/withdrawals and intent to perpetuate scheme | Akintoye: challenged sufficiency and interpretation of statute | Affirmed — court construed statute plainly and found all four elements proved; convictions sustained |
| Confrontation/hearsay (J.M.’s statements via grandson) | State: J.M.’s statements were non‑testimonial family communications and admissible under exceptions | Akintoye: admission violated Sixth Amendment and hearsay rules | Affirmed — statements non‑testimonial; admissible under excited‑utterance and residual exceptions |
| Jury exhibit (text messages) / continuing witness rule | State: text messages were admissible and properly considered by jury | Akintoye: objected that text exhibit should not have gone to jury room under continuing witness rule | Not preserved — defendant failed to contemporaneously object, so no reversible error found |
| Expert testimony / evidence of other bad acts (Rule 404(b)) | State: forensic accounting testimony explained transfers and was intrinsic to the charged scheme | Akintoye: testimony impermissibly introduced extrinsic bad‑acts under Rule 404(b) | Affirmed — expert evidence was intrinsic/inextricably intertwined and defendant opened door to some topics; not barred by 404(b) |
| Ineffective assistance (failure to preserve voir dire record) | Akintoye: counsel deficient for not creating record of jury selection | State: counsel testified no impropriety; defendant offered only speculative claim | Affirmed — Strickland not satisfied; no prejudice shown and performance presumed reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (confrontation clause — testimonial statements)
- Cisneros v. State, 299 Ga. 841 (party/co‑conspirator liability)
- Williams v. State, 297 Ga. App. 150 (theft via transfer into third‑party account supports conviction)
- Robbins v. State, 300 Ga. 387 (excited utterance—totality of circumstances rule)
- Wilson v. State, 295 Ga. 84 (non‑testimonial family conversations and excited‑utterance analysis)
- Baughns v. State, 335 Ga. App. 600 (uncharged conduct intrinsic when necessary to complete the story)