Carter v. StateCarter v. State
After a jury trial in June 2016, Woodrow Carter was convicted of malice murder in connection with the death of James Mills. He appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the jury should have had the option of convicting him of concealing the death of another.1 We disagree and affirm.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial
McCladdie testified that when Mills knocked on the door to the apartment, Carter ran to the bathroom and Redfield ran upstairs while McCladdie stayed where he was. Robinson opened the door and greeted Mills, and then Carter and Redfield emerged from hiding. McCladdie testified that Carter and the others were acting
Mills‘s body was rolled up inside a comforter, and Carter, McCladdie, Robinson, and Redfield then loaded Mills‘s body into Mills‘s vehicle. Redfield drove Mills‘s vehicle to Carter‘s mobile home in South Carolina, with Carter, Robinson, and McCladdie following in Robinson‘s car. In Carter‘s backyard, a large hole had been dug. It contained an empty refrigerator or freezer, and a backhoe sat nearby. Mills‘s body was placed into the appliance in the hole and buried there. The men divided the cocaine Mills had brought with him among themselves, with Carter receiving a couple of ounces.
In 2008, Mills‘s vehicle was discovered. Two years later,
2. Carter argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), to support his conviction for malice murder because it did not show that he was a party to Mills‘s death by strangulation.3 He also argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of Georgia law because the testimony of one of the
(a) Carter first argues that the evidence was insufficient because there was no evidence that he was a party to Mills‘s murder.
When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence [as a matter of constitutional due process], we view all of the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict[s] and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted.
Jones v. State, 304 Ga. 594, 598 (2) (820 SE2d 696) (2018) (citing Jackson, 443 U. S. at 318–319 (III) (B)). “We leave to the jury the resolution of conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence, credibility of witnesses, and reasonable inferences to be derived from the facts, and we do not reweigh the evidence.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Harris v. State, 313 Ga. 225, 229 (2) (869 SE2d 461) (2022).
[a] person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he: (1) [d]irectly commits the crime; (2) [i]ntentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity; (3)
[i]ntentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or (4) [i]ntentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime.
Moreover, “[w]hile proof of a shared criminal intent with the actual perpetrator is necessary to establish that one is a party to the crime, shared criminal intent may be inferred from the person‘s conduct before, during, and after the crime.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bowen v. State, 299 Ga. 875, 877 (1) (792 SE2d 691) (2016). See also Powell v. State, 307 Ga. 96, 99 (1) (834 SE2d 822) (2019).
Carter argues that the evidence here was insufficient because there was no testimony demonstrating that he knew about or participated in the agreement to kill Mills or that he was otherwise a party to the murder. Carter relies on Redfield‘s testimony that Carter did not participate in the murder and that Redfield threatened him into allowing Mills to be buried in his backyard, which he argues shows that he did not participate willingly. However, McCladdie testified extensively at trial about Carter‘s involvement immediately prior to, during, and after the murder, and further testified that the attack on Mills appeared to be pre-
(b) Carter also argues that McCladdie was an accomplice to the
The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact. However, in certain cases, including . . . felony cases where the only witness is an accomplice, the testimony of a single witness shall not be sufficient. Nevertheless, corroborating circumstances may dispense with the necessity for the testimony of a second witness. . . .
Thus, when the only witness to testify at trial is an accomplice, corroborating evidence is required to support a guilty verdict. See Edwards v. State, 299 Ga. 20, 22 (1) (785 SE2d 869) (2016). Whether accomplice testimony has been sufficiently corroborated is a question for the jury, and even slight corroborating evidence of a defendant‘s participation in a crime is sufficient. See Raines v. State, 304 Ga. 582, 588 (2) (a) (820 SE2d 679) (2018) (citing Parks v. State, 302 Ga. 345 (806 SE2d 529) (2017)).
Here, although Carter argues that McCladdie‘s testimony about Carter‘s involvement in the murder was not corroborated, this argument fails. In addition to McCladdie‘s testimony about Carter‘s participation, Redfield testified that Carter was present in the
3. Carter next argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for new trial in order to “correct the manifest injustice of the District Attorney allowing the actual murderer to plead guilty to concealing the death of another . . . while disallowing [Carter‘s] request to allow the jury to have the verdict option of finding [Carter] guilty of concealing the death of another.” We disagree that this enumeration presents any grounds for the reversal of the trial court‘s denial of Carter‘s motion for new trial.
Carter fails to explain how the jury finding him guilty of another crime – that is, concealing the death of another – would have affected his guilty verdict on the murder count. The crime of concealing a death, as defined in
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.