BENNIE LORENZO BELL v. THE STATE
S19A0174
Supreme Court of Georgia
April 29, 2019
305 Ga. 707
BENHAM, Justice.
FINAL COPY
1. Appellant alleges the trial court erred when it denied his
The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the proper standard for review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury‘s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 304 Ga. 752, 754 (822 SE2d 220) (2018). See also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
Here, the record viewed in a light most favorable to upholding the jury‘s verdicts shows as follows. On the night in question, Collier and Stokes were inside Stokes’ boarding house room where they sold drugs. The main entryway door to the boarding house was always locked. That night, someone knocked on the entryway door, and Stokes answered it. A neighbor testified he heard the knock, heard someone say, “You straight, you got any,” and heard Stokes reply, “Yes.” The neighbor testified he heard two different people in the
Collier testified he heard a disturbance in the hallway, and then saw Stokes run into the room, spin around, and try to shut the room door. According to Collier, someone slipped his arm through the doorway before Stokes could close it, and fired a gun at Stokes, causing him to collapse. Collier said he grabbed a .22 caliber pistol that was inside the room and opened fire. Collier testified that the arm holding a gun twice came through the doorway and he shot at it each time. After the gunmen left, Collier ran out of the room and outside of the building where he shot at a vehicle that appeared to be driving away from the boarding house. Collier testified he gave the .22 caliber pistol to the maintenance man to hide, told the maintenance man to call an ambulance for Stokes, and then left the scene. Collier went to the police a day later when he learned that police were looking for him.
Investigators recovered several bullets and shell casings from the scene. A ballistics expert testified many of the shell casings and
The lead detective testified that authorities learned of appellant‘s possible involvement in the crime from an incarcerated informant, who said he saw appellant on the night of the shooting. The informant said appellant had a gunshot wound to his right arm. The informant identified appellant out of a photographic lineup and advised authorities of appellant‘s whereabouts. Authorities arrested appellant on January 12, 2010. Appellant admitted to
Appellant alleges the evidence was insufficient to convict him because, he argues, the State failed to show that he shot at either of the victims. We disagree. This Court has held that
a person may be found guilty of a crime if [he] directly commits the crime or intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime. Whether a person is a party to a crime may be inferred from that person‘s presence, companionship, and conduct before, during, and after the crime . . . .
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Virger v. State, 305 Ga. 281, 288 (3) (824 SE2d 346) (2019). Based on the evidence summarized above, the jury was authorized to conclude appellant was guilty, either directly or as a party to a crime, for the death of Stokes and
2. While appellant was sitting in a patrol car, Investigator Brandon Beckman read appellant his Miranda4 rights, and appellant invoked his right to a lawyer. Investigator Beckman testified he ceased any questioning of appellant. A few minutes later, Lieutenant Scott Peebles informed appellant that he was going to be charged with murder. At that point, appellant told authorities he wanted to speak with them without a lawyer. The police drove appellant to the police station where he signed a waiver of rights form and submitted to an interview, which was partially recorded. During the interview, appellant made inculpatory statements. On appeal, appellant alleges his statements to police should not have been admitted because he invoked his right to counsel. Inasmuch as appellant did not object to the admission of
3. Appellant alleges trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to object to the admission of his custodial statements on the ground that police were barred from interrogating appellant once he invoked his right to counsel. See Division 2, supra. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must
prove both that his counsel‘s performance was professionally deficient and that, but for the unprofessional performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687, 694 (104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). We need not review both elements of this test if the appellant fails to prove one of them. See Matthews v. State, 301 Ga. 286, 288 (800 SE2d 533) (2017).
Here, the record shows police stopped asking questions of appellant when he first invoked his right to counsel. Thereafter, the police did not ask appellant any questions; rather, an officer told appellant the nature of the charges against him. At that point, appellant advised officers he wanted to speak to them without an attorney. Soon thereafter, appellant read and signed a waiver of rights. It was only at that point that police commenced interrogating appellant.
There was no error in admitting the statements under the circumstances described above. Merely informing appellant of the charges pending against him after he had invoked his right to counsel did not constitute an interrogation. See, e.g., Tennyson v. State, 282 Ga. 92 (3) (646 SE2d 219) (2007) (defendant‘s inculpatory response to being informed of the charges against him was not the product of police interrogation). Since appellant initiated further
4. The trial court allowed the State to admit evidence of a January 4, 2010 incident in which appellant robbed an elderly man at knifepoint, stealing the man‘s wallet and vehicle. The victim testified at trial, making an in-court identification of appellant. In addition, the State admitted certified copies of appellant‘s convictions for the incident. Appellant alleges the admission of the evidence was erroneous because its only purpose was to show appellant‘s propensity to commit a crime.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Decided April 29, 2019.
Murder. Richmond Superior Court. Before Judge Jolly.
McMillan & Rawlings, Michael S. Howard, for appellant.
Natalie S. Paine, District Attorney, Kevin R. Majeska, Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott O. Teague, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.