Jarmarvis Dixon appeals from his convictions and sentences for the malice murder of Thomas Vinson, and other crimes associated with that killing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Construed to support the verdicts, the evidence showed that Vinson was working on a rental house he owned. On the evening of December 22, 2006, Dixon and Ronregus Watts were walking on the sidewalk along the street on which Vinson’s rental house was located, and the two men approached Vinson near the door to the house. The men asked Vinson for directions, and one of them struck Vinson on the head with a pistol; the other man covered Vinson’s mouth with his hand. The men forced Vinson to relinquish his wallet, cell phone, and keys. One man went to Vinson’s pickup truck, started it, and maneuvered the truck out of the carport; the other man took Vinson inside the house and shot him.
Susan Mercer, a neighbor who lived down the street from Vinson’s rental house, was driving home that evening and noticed two men walking down the street; when Mercer pulled into her driveway and turned off her car, one of the men stood behind it. Suspicious, Mercer started her car again, backed it out of the driveway, drove away, and used her cell phone to call her husband. After relating the incident to him, he told her to return to their house and that Ken Allen, their neighbor who lived across the street, would assist her. After she arrived back at the house, Allen, having been telephoned by Mercer’s husband, arrived on foot; Mercer pointed out to Allen two
A few days later, Dixon told his cousin, Shameka Neely, that he “got some money’ from “some dude” and produced Vinson’s obituary from his pocket. Dixon told Neely that he and Watts had killed Vinson, and showed her Vinson’s credit card that he and Watts had used to purchase items at a local grocery store. Dixon and Watts later returned to the same grocery store and tried to use the card again, but law enforcement officers were called and arrested them; Dixon had Vinson’s credit card in his possession,
1. On January 2, 2007, while Dixon was in custody, Neely contacted Detective Redding and told him that Dixon wanted the law enforcement investigators to know that he did not shoot Vinson; Neely also said that Dixon would talk to Redding if he went to the jail to speak with him. The next day, January 3, 2007, Redding went to the jail, told Dixon that he had spoken with Neely and that Neely said Dixon wished to speak with him, and asked Dixon whether he, in fact, wished to speak with him. Dixon responded by asking whether “he” —presumably Watts — gave a statement implicating Dixon. Redding repeated his inquiry as to whether Dixon wished to speak with him, and received a similar reply; Redding continued to ask if Dixon wished to speak with him, and Dixon protested that Redding was not answering his questions. Redding then informed Dixon that he would answer Dixon’s questions, but that first, Dixon must be informed of
Dixon moved to exclude evidence of the January 3, 2007 interview, contending that it was conducted in violation of what he claims was a previously-invoked right to counsel. However, Dixon points to nothing in the record that shows he had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation. Thus, nothing supports any claim that the January 3, 2007 waiver of the right to have counsel present during the interview was “insufficient to justify police-initiated interrogation [under Edwards v. Arizona,
2. Dixon contends that his trial counsel failed to provide effective representation. In order to prevail on this claim, he must show both
During its opening statement, the State referred to a statement Neely made to investigating officers and said: “And the clincher, she asked [Dixon], ‘Do you have a conscience?’And he said ‘No.’ ” Dixon’s counsel did not object at the time, but later opined that he should have, contending that this portion of the State’s discussion of Neely’s statement constituted an impermissible comment upon Dixon’s character. Although counsel did not object during the State’s opening statement, he did move to exclude this portion of Neely’s statement from evidence, which the trial court denied.
Dixon contends that counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the remark during the State’s opening statement. To the extent that Dixon asserts that evidence of the remark was admitted as a result of counsel’s failure to object during the State’s opening statement, he misconstrues the trial court’s ruling. Dixon moved to exclude evidence of Neely’s remark from trial, and in denying the motion, the trial court ruled on the merits of Dixon’s argument; it did not base its ruling on the failure of counsel to object during the opening statement. And, in any event, both before opening statements and after closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury that what counsel said during opening statements was not to be considered as evidence, and thus, “even if it was error for [Dixon’s] counsel not to object, there is no reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the trial would have been different if he had objected.” Simmons v. State,
3. Finally, Dixon contends that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the jury to find him guilty of malice murder or possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. “When this Court
Dixon argues that, as Allen saw one man in Vinson’s truck and one man exiting Vinson’s house, and as Dixon’s version of the events given to Detective Redding placed himself in the truck at the time of the shooting and was unrebutted, the evidence requires the conclusion that Watts shot Vinson while Dixon was in the truck. Even if his characterization of the evidence were correct, it would not mean that the jury was not authorized to find him guilty of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The jury was instructed on the law of parties to a crime.
A party to a crime is one who intentionally aids or abets the commission of the crime, or intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime. OCGA § 16-2-20 (b) (3) & (4). “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.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) [Cit.]
Conway v. State,
Further, even though Dixon contends that he did not intend that Vinson be killed, criminal intent may be inferred from a person’s conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
Vinson was killed on December 22,2006. On March 27,2007, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Dixon and Ronregus Watts for malice murder, felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault, felony murder while in the commission of armed robbery, felony murder while in the commission of burglary, armed robbery, burglary, hijacking a motor vehicle, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, transaction card theft, two counts of transaction card fraud, and two counts of aggravated assault; Dixon was also charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Dixon was tried before a jury April 7-14,2008, and found guilty of all charges except possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which had not been presented to the jury and was placed on the dead docket. On April 28, 2008, Dixon was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, 20 years in prison for hijacking a motor vehicle, 20 years in prison for one of the counts of aggravated assault, five years in prison for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, three years in prison for transaction card theft, and three years in prison for each count of transaction card fraud, all to be served consecutively; the remaining guilty verdicts were either vacated by operation of law or merged with crimes for which sentence was entered. See Malcolm v. State,
Vinson’s wallet was recovered from a trash can by a worker at a car wash.
See Miranda v. Arizona,
Dixon told Redding that: he and Watts were walking along a street; Watts inquired if Dixon wanted to rob Vinson; Dixon accompanied Watts to Vinson’s home; Watts asked Vinson for directions, and then struck Vinson on the head with a pistol; Dixon covered Vinson’s mouth to prevent him from screaming; Watts directed Vinson to relinquish his wallet and the keys to his pickup truck to Dixon, which he did; Dixon went to the pickup truck, started it, and drove it out of the driveway, and then got into the passenger seat; Watts took Vinson into the house; Dixon heard a gunshot, but did not know if Watts shot Vinson, or perhaps fired a shot from the pistol and Vinson had a heart attack; Watts exited the house, got into the driver’s seat of the truck, and drove away; Vinson’s cell phone was disposed of in a sewer grate; and the men abandoned the truck. At a later point in the interview, Dixon admitted that it was he who drove the truck away from the crime scene.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Dixon’s argument that information obtained during this interview, specifically, the location of Vinson’s stolen cell phone, must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Vergara v. State,