Appellant Said Mutazz and his co-indictee Walter Geter were charged with the malice and felony murder of Dontavious Wyman and with possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. After being tried separately by a jury, Appellant was found guilty of all charges. The felony murder verdict was vacated by operation of law, and the trial court entered judgments of conviction on the remaining guilty verdicts and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for malice murder and to a consecutive five-year term for the weapons offense. A motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals.
Later that night, Appellant and Geter met Nester at a bar, where Geter indicated that he had just killed someone. Appellant subsequently asked Nester to provide a false alibi to law enforcement officers. Nester’s car had entrance and exit holes, and the parties stipulated that blood found on the car and on Appellant’s shoes belonged to the victim. Although Appellant testified that Geter killed the victim without any prior knowledge by Appellant of Geter’s plan to do so and that Geter threatened to kill Appellant if he told anyone, Appellant admitted that he was present during the shooting but never summoned any assistance for the victim and that he provided a false alibi and repeatedly gave false statements to the investigator.
Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdicts, we conclude that it was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than Appellant’s guilt and to authorize a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted, either as the perpetrator or as a party to the crimes. Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Appellant contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to offer evidence of a prior violent act by Geter, in support of Appellant’s sole defense that Geter alone committed the murder. Under Strickland v. Washington,
“A defendant is entitled to introduce relevant and admissible evidence implicating another person in the commission of the crime or crimes for which the defendant is being tried. [Cit.]” Dawson v. State,
However, the proffered evidence must raise a reasonable inference of the defendant’s innocence, and must directly connect the other person with the corpus delicti, or show that the other person has recently committed a crime of the same or similar nature. [Cits.]
Klinect v. State,
3. Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in giving the suggested pattern jury instructions on mere presence and mere association, because one phrase contained in both of those instructions was misleading. However, Appellant requested both instructions, including the phrase “of which he now complains. ‘A party cannot invite error by requesting a certain jury instruction, and then complain on appeal that the instruction, when given, is incorrect. (Cits.)’ [Cit.]” Madrigal v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on October 9, 2005, and the grand jury returned an indictment on January 3, 2006. A mistrial occurred in December 2006. The jury found Appellant guilty on August 23, 2007, and the trial court entered the judgments of conviction and sentences on August 28,2007. The motion for new trial was filed on September 10,2007, amended on March 22,2010, and denied on February 14,2011. Appellant filed the notice of appeal on February 23, 2011. The case was docketed in this Court for the September 2011 term and was orally argued on October 4, 2011.
