James Thomas was tried by a Fulton County jury and convicted of the murder of Shamar Edwards, as well as aggravated assaults upon Patrick Edwards, Donald Jumper, Amber McAdory, and Quintisha Page. Thomas appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it failed to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants, when it admitted certain evidence, when it allowed the prosecuting attorney to ask leading questions of certain witnesses, and when it refused to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter. We see no error and affirm.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Thomas, Kareem Allen, Raymond Brown, and Adrian Lamar went to a party at a home that was two doors down from the
Later, multiple gunshots were fired at other partygoers as they left the party, including Shamar Edwards, who was struck and killed. These shots were fired from a location in the front of the house in which Allen lived, where Thomas and his friends were seen with one or more handguns. One witness identified Thomas as the shooter, and another said that she saw Thomas holding a handgun just after the shooting. Moreover, the shots were fired from a .45 caliber handgun, and Thomas gave such a handgun to a friend for safekeeping after the shooting. Thomas, Allen, Brown, and Lamar were charged and tried together for the murder and other crimes related to the shooting.
We previously considered the evidence in this case when we heard an appeal by Allen, whose convictions were affirmed. See Allen v. State,
2. Thomas claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants. We previously considered and rejected such a claim of error with respect to Allen, see Allen,
Thomas argues that he was prejudiced by a joint trial because he and a co-defendant are similar in appearance, and for that reason, a joint trial posed a substantial risk of confusion. But several of the witnesses had known Thomas and each of his co-defendants for years, and others were able to identify Thomas by his distinctive clothing. One witness did seem to confuse Thomas and Brown briefly, but she did so only with respect to one particular of her testimony, and she later clarified her testimony on that point.
Thomas also argues that he was prejudiced by the admission of evidence that was properly admissible only against Brown. In support of this argument, Thomas points to testimony by several witnesses that Brown had made statements in which he suggested that he — Brown, that is — had been involved in the shooting. But even if that testimony were not admissible against Thomas,
Finally, Thomas argues that he and his co-defendants presented antagonistic defenses. That argument, however, is belied by the record, which shows that Thomas and his co-defendants urged defenses that were, for the most part, consistent, including, for instance, that prosecution witnesses were not credible, that the area from which the
3. Thomas also contends that the trial court erred when it permitted the prosecuting attorney to lead certain prosecution witnesses, and he points to a number of leading questions put to those witnesses. But Thomas did not raise a timely objection to most of the questions, and he has waived his claim of error to the extent that he did not timely object at trial. See Johnson v. State,
4. Thomas contends that the trial court erred when it admitted, as he describes it, prejudicial character evidence. In particular,
5. Thomas also contends that the trial court should have declared a mistrial after the same witness attempted to explain his prior inconsistent statement. This witness said that he told police that Thomas had given him a gun following the shooting only because an investigator said that “[Thomas] was in the other room and already confessed and told him that I had the [gun].” But it was undisputed that Thomas had not, in fact, confessed, and it was perfectly clear that the statement that the witness attributed to the investigator was only an interrogation technique. Moreover, this testimony was beneficial to Thomas, insofar as it offered an explanation of a prior inconsistent statement that tended to incriminate him. In fact, his lawyer made use of that explanation in his closing argument. Consequently, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Thomas’s motion for a mistrial. See Agee v. State,
6. Finally, Thomas contends that the trial court should have charged the jury on voluntary manslaughter. But we already considered and rejected that claim in Allen,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crimes were committed on July 25, 2004. Thomas and his co-defendants - Kareem Allen, Raymond Brown, and Adrian Lamar — were indicted on December 14,2004, and each was charged with malice murder, felony murder, seven counts of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, carrying a pistol without a license, unlawful carrying of a concealed weapon, and possession of marijuana. Thomas and Brown also were charged with unlawfully influencing a witness. The marijuana charge was dismissed by nolle prosequi, and trial commenced on September 11, 2006. After the State presented its evidence, the trial court directed a verdict of acquittal as to influencing a witness and one count of aggravated assault. The remaining counts went to the jury, which returned its verdict on October 2, 2006, finding Thomas guilty of all charges, except for one count of aggravated assault. On January 31, 2007, Thomas was sentenced to imprisonment for life for malice murder, imprisonment for a consecutive term of five years for aggravated assault upon Jumper, imprisonment for concurrent terms of five years each for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and aggravated assaults upon McAdory, Page, and Patrick Edwards, and imprisonment for concurrent terms of twelve months each for carrying a pistol without a license and unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. The verdict as to felony murder was vacated by operation of law, Malcolm v. State,
The party was hosted by a girl who once had gone to school with Thomas, and it was attended by dozens of teenagers and at least a few young adults.
Allen and Lamar were convicted of the same crimes as Thomas, see note 1, supra, except that Allen was acquitted of the weapons charges. Brown was acquitted of all charges.
This witness initially referred to Brown as “J.T.,” a nickname by which Thomas sometimes was known. But the witness later clarified that she had been given the name by another person, and she confirmed that the person she believed to be “J.T.” was, in fact, Brown.
The assumption might not be warranted. After all, we found in Allen that the statements attributed to Brown “were made during the pendency of [a] conspiracy and were admissible... under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.”
These questions were directed to a witness who attended the party and was asked if she “reeognize[d] [a] diagram as a smaller version of a section of [the area in which the murder took place],” and to a witness who initially had told police that Thomas had given him a gun after the shooting, hut who testified at trial that, in fact, Thomas never had given him a gun.