Wise v. State
300 Ga. 593
| Ga. | 2017Background
- Tamario Wise was tried for a 2010 crime spree (ninety-count indictment) including malice murder, armed robbery, rape, kidnapping, and related offenses; jury convicted him of malice murder and 50 additional counts; sentence: life without parole plus additional consecutive terms.
- Victim Charles Boyer was shot and killed during an armed robbery outside an apartment; Wise, Robert Veal, and Raphael Cross were implicated; Cross testified he remained in the car during the shooting.
- Separate home invasion (November 27, 2010) targeted Hannibal Heredia, his wife Angela Fox, and daughter; victims tied up, jewelry (including Fox’s wedding ring), TVs, phones, and an Audi were stolen; Audi and cell phones later tracked to an address linked to co-defendant Fernando Whatley.
- Whatley’s recorded statement (played after his recantation at trial) admitted participation and gave specific corroborating details; Heredia’s testimony corroborated Whatley but did not positively identify assailants by name.
- Detective Velasquez testified identifying Angela Fox as a victim at the scene; MetroPCS records and a DNA-positive cigar butt in a stolen SUV linked Wise to the crimes.
- Wise raised evidentiary and sufficiency challenges on appeal, specifically contesting: sufficiency as to the Fox ring theft; a co-defendant’s attorney conducting voir dire/height comparison of Wise; prosecutor’s closing remark about Veal admitting to a rape; and admission of cell-phone tower records (Melendez-Diaz argument).
Issues
| Issue | Wise's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery of Angela Fox (wedding ring) | No testimony identified Angela Fox as Heredia’s wife or tied the ring theft to Wise; thus insufficient evidence | Detective Velasquez identified Fox as a victim; Whatley’s confession and Heredia’s account corroborated the robbery; other evidence tied Wise to the spree | Conviction upheld; evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to link Wise to the Fox robbery |
| One-on-one identification / showup during trial | Co-defendant’s attorney effectively conducted an impermissibly suggestive one-on-one identification of Wise | The questioning was limited to height comparison; witness could not identify assailant; voir dire showed no identification; testimony actually aided Wise’s defense by impeaching prior height estimate | No error; not an impermissible showup and benefited defense |
| Prosecutor’s closing remark that Veal admitted to a rape | Statement was improper because Veal did not testify and the remark suggested an admission not in evidence | Veal’s counsel had asserted Veal admitted in opening; additionally, there was evidence: Veal’s DNA matched a rape kit and Cross testified he witnessed the rape | No error; prosecutor’s comment restated opposing counsel and was supported by evidence; jury instruction that arguments aren’t evidence was adequate |
| Admission of cell-phone tower/location records (Melendez-Diaz challenge) | Records inadmissible under Melendez-Diaz because they were testimonial statements from the provider or custodian and implicate Confrontation Clause | MetroPCS custodian (Bosillo) testified at trial, compiled the records, and was cross-examined; thus Melendez-Diaz concerns (absence of affiant) do not apply | No error; records admissible because custodian testified and was subject to cross-examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Confrontation Clause concerns about absent analysts’ affidavits)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause framework)
- Butler v. State, 290 Ga. 412 (one-on-one showups are inherently suggestive but not per se inadmissible)
- Morgan v. State, 267 Ga. 203 (permitted deductions in closing argument so long as they do not introduce facts not in evidence)