Butts v. State
297 Ga. 766
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Appellant Jarvis Butts was convicted of felony murder and related armed-robbery offenses arising from the December 2009 shooting deaths of Jones and Jackson and the robbery of McCarter.
- A group including Butts planned to lure and rob three men after a stop for a car tag, with Brown firing the gun and the others including Butts participating in the robbery.
- Victims were ambushed in an abandoned Las Colinas apartment; two were killed and one victim handed over property.
- Police recovered clothing, a phone, and other items linking Butts and co-conspirators to the crime; a lunch-box gun recovered the next day tied to the shootings.
- Arnold pled guilty and testified against co-defendants; various statements and physical evidence connected the group to the robbery and killings.
- Butts challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for armed-robbery and felony-murder predicates and the trial court’s denial of a general-grounds new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery and felony murder | Butts argues no one knew a gun would be used; he didn’t personally take property or cause death. | The State proved a common plan, aiding and the presence and actions support liability for armed-robbery and felony murder. | Sufficient evidence supported armed-robbery and felony-murder verdicts |
| Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion on the general grounds | Trial court failed to assess witness credibility and weigh evidence as the thirteenth juror. | Order implied discretion was exercised; the court recognized and weighed issues under OCGA §§ 5-5-20/5-5-21. | Enumeration meritless; court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (guides sufficiency review; jury credibility and weight of evidence issues reside with jury)
- Williams v. State, 276 Ga. 384 (Ga. 2003) (felony murder when death occurs during robbery; which conspirator fired need not be proven)
- Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268 (Ga. 2014) (armed robbery can be proven by use of an offensive weapon or appearance thereof)
- Welch v. State, 235 Ga. 243 (Ga. 1975) (conspirator liability for robbery; accomplice may be convicted even if not all property was taken by him)
- Martin v. State, 264 Ga. App. 813 (Ga. App. 2003) (article having appearance of offensive weapon can be a handgun in the defendant's hand)
- Miller v. State, 223 Ga. App. 453 (Ga. App. 1996) (appearance-of-weapon element satisfied by defendant’s hand/gesture)
- Moody v. State, 258 Ga. 818 (Ga. 1989) (purpose of replica weapons is to create reasonable apprehension in victims)
- Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738 (Ga. 2015) (new-trial discretion requires explicit weighting of credibility and evidence)
- Choisnet v. State, 292 Ga. 860 (Ga. 2013) (new-trial review and discretion considerations)
- Alvelo v. State, 288 Ga. 437 (Ga. 2011) (recognizes discretion in general-grounds review)
- Manuel v. State, 289 Ga. 383 (Ga. 2011) (properly exercised discretion on new-trial motions)
- Mills v. State, 188 Ga. 616 (Ga. 1939) (trial court discretion in new-trial rulings)
- Wilder v. State, 193 Ga. 337 (Ga. 1942) (summary denial of new trial implies denial of discretion applied)