NALLS v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
304 Ga. 168
Ga.2018Background
- Victim William Hughes traveled to Atlanta to buy $9,000 of cocaine; Melvin Baty planned to sell him fake drugs and told only Nalls and Rontavious Hill about the plan; Baskin was not told in advance.
- A shooting occurred inside Baty’s apartment; two gunmen fired; Hughes and Baty were shot and Hughes died.
- Evidence placed Nalls at the scene (Baty told Nalls about the plan, Nalls was shot and found outside, camouflage shorts linked to Nalls, clothing matched one gunman who took a purse).
- Evidence placed Baskin as consistent with the taller/older second gunman (appearance, fleeing in a car containing blood and victim’s purse, eyewitness identification and flight from police).
- At a joint trial (2013) both were convicted of malice murder and related offenses; Baskin also convicted of hindering and fleeing; trial court later vacated Baskin’s hindering convictions as mutually exclusive with murder; both appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Nalls’/Appellant’s Argument | Baskin’s/Co-appellant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | (by implication Nalls contended he was at most present) | (Baskin argued State didn’t prove he entered apartment) | Evidence sufficient for both Nalls and Baskin; convictions upheld (Jackson standard). |
| Justification jury charge given generally (not limited to Baskin) | Charge should have been limited to Baskin; failure was plain error and prejudicial | Court noted Baskin requested justification instruction; Nalls objected only at charge conference and not to wording | Any error in not limiting the charge did not affect the outcome; no plain error. |
| Judicial comment on evidence (OCGA § 17-8-57) | Nalls argued the justification instruction improperly intimated the court’s view of facts | Court had separately instructed jury about burden of proof and that judge gave no opinion | No violation of the former statute; charge read in context was not an opinion on guilt. |
| Whether murder and hindering convictions are mutually exclusive; required jury instruction and remedy | Baskin argued trial court should have instructed jury it could not convict him of murder as a party if his role was only accessory after the fact; contended verdicts were mutually exclusive and required reversal | State argued hindering and murder can coexist where facts show both participation and subsequent hindering | Court overruled prior precedent holding murder and hindering always mutually exclusive; here facts could support both (gunman role and later hindering by driving suspects); no reversible error; judgments affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Ivey v. State, 186 Ga. 216 (Ga. 1938) (discussing accessory after the fact and jury instructions)
- Moore v. State, 240 Ga. 210 (Ga. 1977) (distinguishing hindering from being a party to the crime)
- Jordan v. State, 272 Ga. 395 (Ga. 2000) (prior holding that murder and hindering are mutually exclusive)
- Kelly v. State, 290 Ga. 29 (Ga. 2011) (plain error test for jury charge objections)
- Smart v. State, 299 Ga. 414 (Ga. 2016) (when a judge’s instruction amounts to intimating facts)
- Murray v. State, 295 Ga. 289 (Ga. 2014) (instruction context and comments on evidence)
- Hampton v. State, 289 Ga. 621 (Ga. 2011) (prior treatment of mutually exclusive verdicts)
- Stanton v. State, 274 Ga. 21 (Ga. 2001) (prior precedent on vacating hindering convictions)