Hamilton v. StateHamilton v. State
Carlos Donta Hamilton appeals his convictions and sentences for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, both in connection with the death of Dwytree Parrish. Fоr the reasons that follow, we affirm.1
Construed to support the verdicts, the evidence showed that Hamilton‘s sister, Marshander Hamilton (“Marshander“), previously had a romantic relationship with Terence Stocks. Stocks later telephoned Marshander, and she accused Stocks and Parrish, a friend of Stocks, of breaking into her home and stealing money. Stocks denied these accusations and stated that neither he nor Parrish played any part in the burglary. Thаt same day, Stocks telephoned Parrish and reported the earlier conversation he had with Marshander. Stocks
Hamilton drove Stocks to a store, where they saw Parrish exit the store. Stocks and Parrish spoke about their plans for the evening. Hamilton offered to give Stocks and Parrish a ride, аnd drove them to another store, where Stocks went inside to purchase smoking materials; when he exited the store, there was a group of 15 to 20 pеrsons near the car. Hamilton took a pistol from the car‘s trunk, placed Parrish in a headlock, and accused him of breaking into Marshander‘s home. Hamilton struck Parrish on the top of the head with the pistol, spoke angrily to him, and shot him once in the chest. Stocks ran from the area, looked back, and saw members of the surrounding group striking Parrish.
An off-duty law enforcement officer near the scene of the shooting heard the gunshot and arrived at the scene shortly thereafter; he saw a large group of people, who quickly fled. Parrish was taken to a hospital where he identified himself to a police officer and stated that he was with his friend “T” when an African-American male approached him, accused him of breaking into the home of thе male‘s sister, and then shot him. Parrish later died of the gunshot wound.
After Stocks ran from the scene of the shooting, he went to Hamilton‘s house, and reported the inсident to Marshander, who told him to be quiet about it so that Hamilton‘s wife did not learn of it. Hamilton later arrived in the car and placed what appeared to be a handgun in a shed; he denied having shot the pistol.
Before trial, a handwritten letter was sent to Parrish‘s family purportedly authored by “Terrence Stоcks, J.R.,” naming the writer as the shooter, and specifically denying that Hamilton had anything to do with the shooting. At trial, evidence was introduced showing that Stocks spеlls his first name “Terence” and uses the suffix “II” rather than “Jr.” Handwriting comparison analysis indicated that the letter was written by the same person who wrote letters purportedly authored by Hamilton and sent to the trial judge, on which Hamilton‘s fingerprints appeared; a sample of Stocks‘s handwriting was obtained and did not mаtch that on the letter sent to the Parrish family.
1. Hamilton contends the evidence against him was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that hе was guilty of the crimes
Hamilton also points to certain aspects of the physical evidence presented by the State, and сontends this evidence was not conclusive of his guilt. However, the fact that fingerprint evidence did not tie Hamilton to the letter sent to the Parrish family that claimed to be written by Stocks, but did tie him to other letters written in the same hand as the letter to the Parrish family was merely one matter for the jury‘s assessment, as was the fact that the projectile taken from Parrish‘s body could not definitively be matched to the cartridge casing found at the crime scene. To the extent that Hamilton argues that the State presented only circumstantial evidence that did not exclude all reasonable hypotheses except that of his guilt, see
[q]uеstions as to the reasonableness of hypotheses are generally to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence and where the jury is authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt, that finding will not be disturbed unless the verdiсt of guilty is insupportable as a matter of law.
Rogers v. State, 290 Ga. 18, 23 (4) (717 SE2d 629) (2011) (Citations and punctuation omitted.). The evidence in this case authorized the
2. Hamilton contends that the trial court erred in denying his objections to Stocks‘s tеstimony that Hamilton had drunk beer, appeared inebriated, and smoked marijuana shortly before declaring that he wanted to find Parrish and speak with him. Although Hаmilton contends this testimony constituted improper comment upon his character, “evidence as to whether a defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time a crime was committed is deemed part of the res gestae and is admissible as such even though it may incidentally plаce the defendant‘s character in evidence. [Cit.]” Cunningham v. State, 279 Ga. 694, 695 (3) (620 SE2d 374) (2005).
Judgments affirmed. All the Justices concur.