Appellant Shaheed Kaba Huff was convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Graham Sisk.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence presented at trial showed that Huff asked Turner, Starr, and Haygood to assist him in moving some personal belongings, using a pickup truck and an SUV that he owned. During the move, Huff announced that he “had to make a play,” or
Turner pursued the victim in Huff’s truck, followed by Huff driving the SUV. Ahigh-speed chase ensued along city streets at rush hour, seen by numerous eyewitnesses and captured on surveillance video, during which Turner rammed the victim’s car, damaging Huff’s truck.
Huff gave a statement to police in which he said that he asked Turner, Haygood, and Starr to assist him with moving furniture, and that Turner asked to borrow his pickup truck to conduct some business, then drove away with his truck. Huff acknowledged to police, however, that he owned the SUV and was driving it during the incident. At trial, Huff presented testimony from Turner that Turner found approximately 200 pills in a dumpster behind a medical clinic, that “somebody” told him they were “Percocet,” and that he decided to sell them to the victim. Turner testified that he chose to pursue the victim when he drove away, and that Huff knew nothing about the drug transaction. Huff also presented testimony from Haygood that when Turner left in pursuit of the victim, Huff exclaimed, “He’s going to kill someone in my vehicle” and “I got to get my truck.” While Haygood testified that Huff instructed him to ask what Turner was doing with his truck and that he told Turner not to move it, Turner testified that “no one said anything” to him while he was at the victim’s car.
1. Huff first contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, because Starr’s testimony as an accomplice or party to the crime was the only evidence identifying him as a participant. The record, however, does not support this claim.
Although OCGA § 24-14-8
This evidence, which was related to Huff’s conduct before, during, and after the crimes and connected Huff to the crimes charged, was sufficient to corroborate Starr’s testimony that Huff joined in the pursuit not out of concern for his truck or other motorists’ safety, but to recover his drugs from the victim. See id. (appellant’s admission that he drove two alleged accomplices to scene, together with their testimony and physical evidence, was sufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony). See also Handley v. State,
2. Huff next contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated. OCGA § 24-14-8 provides in its entirety:
The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact. However, in certain cases, including prosecutions for treason, prosecutions for perjury, and 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, except in prosecutions for treason.
Huff having neither requested the instruction nor objected to its omission, we review this enumeration solely for plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b). Sanders v. State,
the proper inquiry is whether the instruction was erroneous, whether it was obviously so, and whether it likely affected the outcome of the proceedings. If all three of these questions are answered in the affirmative, the appellate court has the discretion to reverse if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings below. Satisfying all four prongs of this standard is difficult, as it should be.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Kelly,
Huff’s reliance on Stanbury v. State,
Here, in contrast, the parties agree that the trial court did not charge the jury that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to prove a fact.
Huff also asserts that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury that coercion is not a defense to murder. Once again, Huff failed to request such a charge or object to its omission, requiring a plain error analysis. The omission of such an instruction was not plain error, because such a charge would not be adjusted to the facts presented here. Huff does not claim coercion, or that he was forced to participate in the shooting; rather, he argues that Starr’s testimony could have been attacked through a legal instruction that Starr’s claim of coercion did not relieve him of criminal responsibility for the murder, and further argues that Starr could not reasonably have been coerced under the facts presented at trial. But Huff contended that Starr acted independently and without his knowledge in attacking the victim while Huff was attempting to recover his pickup truck from Turner. A charge on coercion would have had no direct relevance to Huff’s defense. Under these circumstances, Huff has failed to show plain error.
3. Huff asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because Starr recanted his trial testimony. We disagree.
That a material witness for the State, who at the trial gave direct evidence tending strongly to show the defendant’s guilt, has since the trial made statements even under oath that his former testimony was false, is not cause for a new trial. Declarations made after the trial are entitled to much less regard than sworn testimony delivered at the trial. The only exception to the rule against setting aside a verdict without proof of a material witness’ conviction for perjury, is where there can be no doubt of any kind that the State’s witness’ testimony [was the] purest fabrication.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Norwood v. State,
4. Huff claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for a directed verdict on the basis that Starr’s testimony was uncorroborated, in failing to request a charge on corroboration or argue lack of corroboration in closing, and in failing to request a charge on coercion or argue it in closing. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, Huff must prove both that the performance of his lawyer was deficient and that he was prejudiced by this deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington,
With respect to the issue of corroboration, Huff’s trial counsel testified at the hearing on Huff’s motion for new trial that his theory of the case was that Huff had no involvement in the drug deal and was simply trying to discover why Turner pursued the victim in his pickup truck, and that he had no knowledge that Starr was going to shoot the victim. He testified that his defense was aimed at showing that Starr acted on his own, without Huff’s knowledge, and that “everything we did was geared towards showing that Mr. Huff had no connection to anything that Mr. Starr did.” Since the defense position was that Starr was not an accomplice, trial counsel testified that he did not ask for a charge on corroboration because he did not want to “suggest[ in any form or fashion that he was an accomplice,” and it would have been “counterintuitive for me to ask the court to charge on that.”
“Decisions as to which jury charges will be requested and when they will be requested fall within the realm of trial tactics and strategy They provide no grounds for reversal unless such tactical decisions are so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen them.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) McLean v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on October 5, 2012. On April 17, 2013, a DeKalb County grand jury indicted Huff on charges of malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, trafficking in cocaine, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The drug charges were severed from the remaining counts; appellant later entered a negotiated plea to possession of cocaine, and the State nol prossed the marijuana charge. Huff was tried before a jury July 29 -August 2, 2013, and found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, both counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, a consecutive 20-year term for one count of aggravated assault, and a consecutive five-year term of imprisonment for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The remaining convictions either merged or were vacated by operation of law. See Malcolm v. State,
Turner testified that the victim was a regular customer who met him frequently at that location to purchase pills, usually prescription narcotics.
When police eventually located Huff’s pickup truck, it had front end damage consistent with having rammed another vehicle.
The indictment originally charged Huff, Starr and Turner; Starr pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, while Turner pleaded guilty to aggravated assault approximately six months after the trial concluded. Both men testified at Huff’s trial.
Former OCGA § 24-4-8 wascarriedforwardin the new Evidence Codeas OCGA § 24-14-8; the new provision is substantially the same as the old, and we have given it the same meaning. See Bradshaw v. State,
The notes to the pattern instruction caution that accomplice testimony requires corroboration.
Similar circumstances obtained in Fisher v. State,
While the giving of the pattern instruction on the testimony of a single witness was discussed at the charge conference, the parties agree that it was never given.