Following a jury trial, Hakim Muhammad appeals his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence. 1 Muhammad contends that the evidence was insuffi cient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred by admitting similar transaction evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In addition, the evidence showed that, on at least two prior occasions, there had been domestic violence between Muhammad and Shelia. In one such instance, Muhammad grabbed Shelia by the throat prior to pushing her backward. Also, similar transaction evidence was admitted showing that Muhammad had a prior romantic involvement with Alvinice Muhammad (no relation). Alvinice purchased a home in Marietta that she shared with two female housemates. Alvinice allowed Muhammad to stay at that home for a few weeks. Muhammad began acting violently toward Alvinice, however, and Alvinice asked Muhammad to move out. Muhammad refused. Alvinice then decided to obtain a restraining order against Muhammad. On the morning she planned to do so, Alvinice woke to find Muhammad straddling her body and choking her with both hands on her throat. Muhammad released Alvinice only after one of her roommates ran into the room. Thereafter, Alvinice obtained the restraining order. In retaliation, Muhammad burned down Alvinice’s house, telling her: “I told you I could get into the house anytime I got ready, and if I can’t live in the house, nobody can live in the house.” This evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to find Muhammad guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Muhammad contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence regarding his prior conviction for arson, arguing that it was not sufficiently similar to
Evidence that a defendant has committed an independent offense or bad act is admissible if the State shows and the trial court rules that there is a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offenses or acts and the crime charged so proof of the former tends to prove the latter. . . . When considering the admissibility of similar transaction evidence, the proper focus is on the similarities, not the differences, between the separate crime and the crime in question. We will uphold the trial court’s decision to admit a similar transaction unless it is an abuse of discretion.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Whitehead v. State, 287
Ga. 242, 249 (3) (
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
On February 1, 2010, Muhammad was indicted in Rockdale County for malice murder,
two counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of tampering with evidence. The trial court directed a verdict on one count of felony murder and one count of aggravated assault, and, following a jury trial commencing on October 18,2010, Muhammad was found guilty on the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Muhammad to life imprisonment for malice murder with six concurrent months for tampering with evidence. The conviction for felony murder was vacated by operation of law, see
Malcolm v. State,
Apparently, Shelia had decided to stay at the marital residence because she was afraid that there had been a burglary attempt at her rented residence two nights earlier.
