Parks v. State
304 Ga. 313
Ga.2018Background
- On April 16, 2008, Dexter Lamar Parks rode with members of a group called GMC into an Austell neighborhood; members shouted “GMC” and attempted to start a fight.
- Parks remained in a car, shouted “bust that sh*t,” and a co-defendant, Rodger Jackson, fired three shots into a crowd; one shot fatally wounded Caleb Burroughs.
- GMC was presented at trial as a local gang; the State introduced a gang expert who described GMC’s name, colors, symbols, membership, and activity; clothing with GMC symbols was found in Parks’s room and Parks wore a GMC hat on video.
- Parks was tried in 2010, convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and participation in criminal gang activity, and sentenced to life plus five years.
- On appeal Parks argued (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a party to the crimes and to prove the gang-related conviction, and (2) the trial court erred in admitting the gang expert’s testimony based on hearsay and matters within jurors’ ken.
Issues
| Issue | Parks' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — party liability | Evidence did not prove Parks aided/abetted the shooting; mere presence insufficient | Presence, companion conduct, his shout “bust that sh*t,” and post-offense conduct supported party liability | Evidence was sufficient to convict Parks as a party to the crimes |
| Sufficiency — gang participation | Expert relied on inadmissible hearsay to prove GMC engaged in prior gang activity required for gang count | Statute does not require proof of prior incidents; contemporaneous conduct showed GMC engaged in gang activity | Sufficient evidence existed that GMC engaged in criminal gang activity; gang conviction upheld |
| Admissibility — gang expert hearsay | Expert’s account of tagging and other matters rested on inadmissible hearsay and thus should be excluded | Expert testified to his personal investigations and firsthand knowledge; matters beyond jurors’ ken justified expert opinion | Trial court did not abuse discretion; expert testimony admissible as based on personal knowledge and matters outside ordinary juror experience |
| Weight of hearsay in expert opinion | Any lack of personal knowledge made the expert a conduit for hearsay and required exclusion | Any lack of personal knowledge goes to weight, not admissibility; jury can assess credibility | Even if parts were hearsay, that affects weight; admission was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McGruder v. State, 303 Ga. 588 (sufficiency standard for evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction)
- Veal v. State, 298 Ga. 691 (application of sufficiency review)
- Navarrete v. State, 283 Ga. 156 (presence/companionship may support inference of criminal intent)
- Downey v. State, 298 Ga. 568 (accomplice need only knowingly assist or encourage reckless conduct)
- Sims v. State, 281 Ga. 541 (statements, threats, and flight support party liability)
- Welbon v. State, 301 Ga. 106 (interpretation of witness statements is for the factfinder)
- Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813 (timing and context of statements before shooting relevant to party liability)
- Hill v. State, 310 Ga. App. 695 (contextual facts can show intent to “bust” as command to shoot)
- Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. 339 (conspiracy/attempt to commit violent offense can show ongoing gang activity)
- Edge v. State, 275 Ga. 311 (gang expert may testify on matters beyond jurors’ common experience)
- Cobb v. State, 283 Ga. 388 (limitations on expert opinions based solely on hearsay)
- Velazquez v. State, 282 Ga. 871 (expert’s lack of personal knowledge affects weight, not necessarily admissibility)
- Rodriguez v. State, 284 Ga. 803 (commission of enumerated offense alone does not prove existence of a criminal street gang)
- Livingston v. State, 268 Ga. 205 (under old Evidence Code, improperly admitted hearsay has no probative value for sufficiency review)
- Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333 (discussion on hearsay and evidence sufficiency)