S20A0633, S20X0634. THE STATE v. GRIER; and vice versa.
S20A0633, S20X0634
Supreme Court of Georgia
August 10, 2020
309 Ga. 452
In 2010, Quаntavious Grier was tried by a Fulton County jury and convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the robbery and fatal shooting of James Yarborough.1 Grier filed a motion for new trial, and in 2019, the trial court granted his motion “as a matter of law and facts, sitting as the thirteenth juror.” In support of its ruling, the trial court found that the case against Grier was based substantially upon the testimony of Rimion Rawlings,
that the greater weight of the evidence indicated that Rawlings was Grier‘s accomplice, and that Rawlings‘s testimony was insufficiently corroborated by independent evidencе. The State appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the motion for new trial. Grier cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court also should have concluded that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon our review of the record and the briefs, we find no merit in either of these claims, and we affirm.
1. The State argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the motion for new trial because Rawlings was not an accomplice, and even if he were, his testimony was sufficiently corroborated. We disagree that the trial court abused its discretion.
“In any case when the verdict of a jury is found contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity, the judge presiding may grant a new trial before another jury.”
With these guiding principles in mind, we turn to the facts of this case. The evidence shows that, on the evening of December 21, 2007, Yarborough and his nephew, Kenneth Kaiser, were walking to a check-cashing store with a check for roughly $1,500. Along the way, they encountered Darius Jordan and Rawlings, who offered them a ride. Jordan and Rawlings were strangers to Yarborough and Kaiser, but they were friends with Grier. In fact, Jordan was driving a Honda that hе had borrowed from Grier‘s mother. Jordan drove Yarborough and Kaiser to the store, where Yarborough cashed his check and returned to the Honda.
Yarborough purchased crack cocaine and marijuana from Jordan and kept the remainder of the money. The mеn purchased drug paraphernalia, and Yarborough then smoked crack cocaine inside the vehicle while Jordan drove around. Jordan made at least one stop while driving, and he ultimately circled twice around the block of the neighborhood on which Grier‘s mother lived, and where Grier lived on and off. During this time, Jordan was talking on his cell phone with someone. Eventually, Jordan parked the car, and Rawlings exited the Honda. At that time, a man dressed in black approached the vehicle. The man greeted Jordan and then ordered Yarborough and Kaiser at gunpoint to get “the f*** out” of the vehicle. The man ordered Yarborough and Kaiser to hand over their drugs and money, which they did. Then, the man ordered them to walk away from the vehicle. Kaiser began to do so, but Yarborough threw his jacket at the gunman. The man fired his weaрon, fatally wounding Yarborough. Rawlings, Jordan, and the gunman got into the Honda and sped off. Kaiser described the gunman as a young, light-skinned black man with no facial hair and a buzz haircut — a description that Grier fit. Although the State later indicted Grier as the shooter, Kaiser did not identify him in a lineup. He did, hоwever, identify both Jordan and Rawlings.
Also at trial, the State presented Rawlings as a witness. Rawlings testified, but only after the State granted him immunity from prosecution. He testified that he was riding in a black Honda with Jordan when they picked up Yarborough and Kaiser. After the men cashed a check, hе and Jordan sold them drugs and helped them obtain drug paraphernalia with which to consume the drugs. Rawlings testified that Jordan eventually drove them around the block near Grier‘s mother‘s house and stopped the car. Rawlings confirmed that Grier approached the vehicle аnd ordered Yarborough and Kaiser out at gunpoint. During that time, Rawlings walked to the rear of the car because he “wouldn‘t have nothing to do with” the robbery. He testified that he then saw Grier shoot Yarborough. Following this, Rawlings jumped in the vehicle with Jordan and Grier and rode off. Jordan and Grier gave him $50 and told him not to tell anybody about what had happened. He later identified Jordan and Grier to police investigators.
The State introduced cell phone records to show that, just before the shooting, Jordan had been talking on his cell phone with someone using a cell phone that customarily was used by Grier‘s older brother. But the older brother — who is deaf and used his phone exclusively for text messaging and purposes other than audible communications — testified at trial that he was asleep at his mother‘s house at the time of the incident and had no knowledge of the robbery and murder. The
In closing argument, Grier‘s lawyer said that the most important instruction given to the jury was the charge on accompliсe testimony, arguing that there was no evidence to corroborate Rawlings‘s testimony identifying Grier as the shooter. The State, in response, argued that Rawlings was not an accomplice, and so the prosecution did not need to corroborate his testimony. The jury asked during its dеliberations for a definition of an accomplice. After it was charged on the definition of an accomplice, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.
After conducting four hearings, the trial court granted Grier‘s motion for new trial in early 2019. The court observed that Rawlings admitted during cross-examination that he was a party to the crime of armed robbery, as he was with Yarborough before the armed robbery, was present for its planning, and had prior knowledge it was going to occur. He then was present when the armed robbery and shooting occurred, fled the scene with the co-conspirators, and received $50 to stay quiet about the robbery and murder. Furthermore, upon review of all the testimony presented at trial, the trial court concluded that Rawlings‘s accomplice testimony was insufficiently corroborated, sо Grier was entitled to a new trial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in making this determination in its capacity as the thirteenth juror. Consistent with the jury instructions, the jury could have returned a guilty verdict after concluding either that Rawlings was not an accomplice (in which case, his testimony alone was enough to convict) or that Rawlings was an accomplice but his testimony was adequately corroborated. See
2. In his cross-appeal, Grier argues that the trial court, while correct in granting his motion on thirteenth juror grounds, also should have concluded that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviсtions.2 We disagree. As a matter of federal constitutional due process, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), the evidence — viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury — was sufficient to sustain the convictions, regardless of whether it showed Rawlings to be an accomplicе. See United States v. Milkintas, 470 F3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting that, in
federal court, “uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to support a conviction if it is not on its face incredible or otherwise
As for the sufficiency of the evidencе under state law — specifically the requirement of
accompliсe, there was some evidence that would have authorized the jury to find sufficient corroboration of his testimony, notwithstanding that the trial judge as the thirteenth juror found corroboration wanting.3 See Robinson v. State, 303 Ga. 321, 323 (1) (812 SE2d 232) (2018) (noting that corroborating evidence may be “circumstantial” and “slight” but is sufficient if it “directly connects the defendant with the crime or lead to the inference of guilt“). That different finders of fact — the jury and the trial judge in his capacity as the thirteenth juror — may have seen the evidence differently and reached inconsistent conclusions does not mean that thе evidence was legally insufficient to sustain either of their conclusions.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
DECIDED AUGUST 10, 2020.
Murder. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Newkirk.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Lyndsey H. Rudder, Stephany J. Luttrell, Teri B. Walker, Assistant District Attorneys; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appеllant.
Brian Steel, for appellee.