Lewis v. State
301 Ga. 759
| Ga. | 2017Background
- Devasko Lewis was convicted of malice murder and related offenses for hiring Jamarcus Clark to kill his business partner, Corey Daniels; Clark shot and killed Daniels’s nephew, Kerry Glenn, in a mistaken-identity killing.
- Prosecution evidence: Clark’s trial testimony implicating Lewis, testimony from intermediary Tony Taylor, surveillance and cell‑phone records showing Lewis supplied a truck, paid Clark, and communicated via a disposable phone, and Daniels’s testimony about threats from Lewis.
- Lewis testified and denied hiring Clark, attacked accomplice credibility, and argued accomplice testimony was uncorroborated.
- After trial Lewis moved for a new trial based on a post‑trial letter allegedly from Clark recanting his trial testimony; Clark refused to confirm authorship or admit perjury at the hearing.
- Trial court denied the new‑trial motion (letter deemed merely impeaching); Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding corroboration adequate and the recantation insufficient to require a new trial.
- Lewis also challenged Georgia’s murder sentencing scheme (judge may impose life or life without parole) as conflicting with Alleyne/Apprendi; the Court rejected the constitutional challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / accomplice corroboration | Lewis: Clark/Taylor inconsistent and uncorroborated; conviction should not stand | State: accomplice testimony need only slight, independent corroboration (cell records, payments, motive, surveillance) | Court: Evidence, though partly circumstantial, sufficiently corroborated accomplice testimony; jury credibility determinations stand (Jackson standard) |
| New trial based on recanted testimony | Lewis: Clark’s post‑trial letter admitting fabrication requires new trial (purest fabrication exception) | State: recantation is merely impeaching absent perjury conviction or proof of impossibility | Court: Letter is impeaching only; no perjury conviction or impossibility shown; trial court properly denied new trial |
| Constitutionality of statutory requirement (perjury conviction) to vacate verdict | Lewis: statute denying trial court discretion violates due process and equal protection; trial court should be able to grant new trial when witness admits false testimony | State: statute protects against unreliable post‑trial contradictions by requiring perjury conviction or impossibility; constitutionally permissible | Court: Statute constitutional; prior precedent upheld same rule (Burke) and equal protection/due process claims rejected |
| Sentencing (life without parole imposed by judge) under Alleyne/Apprendi | Lewis: imposition of life without parole by judge, without jury finding beyond reasonable doubt, violates Alleyne/Apprendi | State: sentencing range is statutory; judge’s selection does not increase mandatory minimums or exceed statutory maximums | Court: No Alleyne/Apprendi violation; life without parole lies within statutory range and does not require jury finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (corroboration of accomplice testimony may be slight and circumstantial)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (criminal sufficiency review—evidence must permit a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Davis v. State, 283 Ga. 438 (recantation is generally only impeaching and insufficient for new trial)
- Norwood v. State, 273 Ga. 352 (same—recantation does not automatically require new trial)
- Fugitt v. State, 251 Ga. 451 (new trial appropriate where trial testimony shown to be impossible in every material part)
- Burke v. State, 205 Ga. 656 (upholding statutory requirement of perjury conviction before vacating verdict; constitutional challenge rejected)
- Williams v. State, 291 Ga. 19 (discussing legislative amendments to Georgia murder sentencing scheme)
- Babbage v. State, 296 Ga. 364 (rejecting Apprendi challenge to Georgia’s life‑without‑parole sentencing for murder)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)