WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.
S17A0783
Supreme Court of Georgia
August 14, 2017
301 Ga. 712
PETERSON, Justice.
FINAL COPY
Jоseph Scott Williams was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Adiren Thompson.1 Williams appeals and argues that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion to shuffle the jury pool; (2) excluding evidence supporting his claim of self-defense; (3) denying his motion for a mistrial when the State questioned him about allegations of jury
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the trial evidence showed the following. Williams and Thompson were friends until Williams went to prison and Thompson started dating Williams‘s wife Chassity. Chassity divorced Williams in early 2010 while he was still incarcerated. When Williams was released from prison later that year, he showed сonsiderable animosity toward Chassity and Thompson. In April 2010, he visited Chassity‘s home to retrieve some personal belongings, told her that she “wasn‘t going to be with” Thompson, and destroyed her cell phone. Williams at some point told Chassity that he did not want to see Thompson and preferred that she handle any custodial exchange of their son J. T. Chassity married Thompson in late 2010.
The next day, Chassity and Thompson went to pick up J. T. at Williams‘s home, parking their car on the lawn. Chassity sent a text to Williams to send out J. T. After they left, Williams and Chassity exchanged the following text messages:2
WILLIAMS: Ya disrespectful ass. I‘m not even gone feed into that. But tell him when he ready for that gangsta s**t get at me. We can get it popping. Coach J.
CHASSITY: [W]hat are you talking about[?] He pulled in the grass so [J. T.] wouldn‘t get wet.
WILLIAMS: If you bring him or send him back over here, I put that on his brother D Rock. I‘m going to change his life forever. Play with it and think it‘s [a game]. Coach J.
Chassity testified that she interpreted Williams‘s reference to Thompson‘s brother “D Rock,” who was dead, as a threat to put Thompson in the grave with his brother. When Chassity responded that Thompson took care of their son
WILLIAMS: I‘m through talking. You got the message.
CHASSITY: [A]in‘t nobody scared of you. You don‘t put no fear in my heart. The only thing I fear is my god, and you best do the same. Now you and yours have a good night and we will too.
WILLIAMS: Get you [a] lot on standby. Pick you [a] good preacher. Try mе. I pray you do.
CHASSITY: I promise you, all I have to do is pray and you‘ll be in the worst predicament of your life. It happens every time.
WILLIAMS: You can‘t touch me. F**k, n***a, I don‘t worship the devil. If you keep playing, I‘m a f**k over your boy.
In response, Chassity relayed Thompson‘s phone number. Williams wrote in reply, “Send it to Wimberly and Jackson. They gonna need it.” Chassity testified that Wimberly and Jackson was a local funeral home.
On June 3, the day after the text message exchange, Thompson pulled his car into a grocery store parking lot where Williams was standing. The two men argued and pushed each other before Thompson walked back to his car. As Thompson was walking away, Williams briefly entered his own car. When he exited, he pointed a firearm at Thompson and started shooting. Thompson began to run but was hit by a bullet and fell to the ground. Thompson got up and tried to get away, but Williams fired another shot into Thompson‘s back. Thompson
A witness testified that after he heard the initial gunshots, he saw Thompson come around the corner and ask for help. The witness then heard Williams repeatedly say to Thompson, “I told you about f**king with me” and “I told you I was going to kill you,” as he fired more shots at Thompson. Another witness said that after Thompson fell to the ground, Thоmpson threw up his hands as though pleading with Williams to stop, but Williams continued to shoot. These witnesses testified that Thompson did not have anything in his hands, and police investigators recovered no weapons from Thompson‘s vehicle. Thompson died as a result of the gunshot wounds.
Williams claimed self-defense at trial. He testified that Thompson was the aggressor during the encounter at the parking lot because he approached Williams, punched Williams in the face, and threatened to hurt Williams. Williams also testified that, as Thompson was preparing to fight, Thompson
1.
Although Williams does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2.
Williams argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to “shuffle” the jury pool — i.e., call them in an order different from that set by the jury clerk — claiming that it would have ensured a better representation of the community and promoted the jury‘s impartiality. Although Williams points to cases in which we concluded that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in
3.
Williams argues that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence that supported his self-defense сlaim. We disagree.
(a) Prior act of violence by the victim
The trial court allowed Williams to present some evidence of violent acts by Thompson against third parties, but excluded evidence that Thompson shot a third party when he was a juvenile on the ground that there was a lack of information about the context of the shooting that would allow the court to evaluate its similarity to the present case. Williams challenges this ruling, arguing that the evidence was relevant to show his state of mind when responding to Thompson‘s purported aggression.
Even if the prior violent act of Thompson was admissible, any error in excluding the evidence was harmless.3 See Smith v. State, 299 Ga. 424, 431-432
The evidence of Williams‘s guilt was overwhelming. Several witnesses testified and a video recording confirms that Williams continued to shoot Thompson in the back after Thompson pleaded for his life and attempted to crawl away from Williams. There was no evidence that Thompson was armed. Given this evidence, it is inconceivable that the еxclusion of one prior violent act by Thompson, where others were introduced, had any effect on the jury‘s rejection of Williams‘s self-defense claim. See Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75, 77 (2) (586 SE2d 313) (2003) (no reasonable likelihood that the jury would have accepted defendant‘s self-defense claim had he called expert to refute evidence that bullet holes in victim‘s back were entrance wounds where other compelling evidence showed that defendant repeatedly shot victim in the back); see also
(b) Evidence that Thompson was first person to give Williams a gun
Williams also argues that the сourt erred in excluding evidence that Thompson was the first person to show Williams how to use a gun. Williams attempted to introduce the evidence at trial as one instance of many prior difficulties between the parties. The trial court allowed some evidence of prior difficulties between the parties, but excluded the evidence about Thompson placing a gun in Williams‘s hand bеcause it did not demonstrate any difficulty between the two. We agree with the trial court that this evidence did not show a prior difficulty between Thompson and Williams. Nor is the act of giving someone a gun, without more, an act of violence. The court did not err in excluding the evidence.
4.
Williams next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when the State questioned him about allegations of jury tampering by a third party. We disagree.
During its cross-examination of Williams, the State asked Williams whether he was aware that his friend Tate attempted to bribe a juror. Williams objected and moved for a mistrial. The State argued it had a good-faith basis for asking the question based on Lawson‘s statements to court security, and denied that it was making an allegation that Williams was associated with the bribery. The court denied Williams‘s motion for a mistrial, told the prosecutor to drop further questioning on the matter, and instructed the jury that the State‘s question was not evidence and shоuld be ignored. The court also explained to the jury that it had previously excused Harvey from the jury because she was in the courtroom when she should have been in the jury room.
Where counsel in the hearing of the jury make statements of prejudicial matters which аre not in evidence, it is the duty of the court to interpose and prevent the same. On objection made, the court shall also rebuke the counsel and by all needful and proper instructions to the jury endeavor to remove the improper impression from their minds; or, in his discretion, he may order a mistrial if the prosecuting attorney is the offender.
Absent a manifest abuse of discretion, we will not interfere with the court‘s determination as to whether a curative instruction will suffice to remedy the prejudicial matter or whether a mistrial is necessary. See Turner v. State, 299 Ga. 720, 723 (5) (791 SE2d 791) (2016); Sanders v. State, 290 Ga. 445, 448-449 (3) (721 SE2d 834) (2012). If a court elects to give a curative instruction, we will not grant a new trial unless it is clear that the court‘s instruction failed to eliminate the effect of the prejudicial comment. See Turner, 299 Ga. at 723 (5).
The State‘s question was limited to one sentence and was promptly objected to by counsel. The court instructed the jury to ignore the question, that the State‘s question was not evidence, and that juror Harvey had been dismissed for matters unrelated to jury tampering. Given the strength of the case against
5.
Williams argues that the court erred in refusing to give the jury a requested charge on involuntary manslaughter, because there was evidence that he committed an unlawful act that was not a felony — either reckless conduct or pointing a pistol at another — that caused Thompson‘s death without the intent to do so. See
6.
Williams argues that trial counsel was ineffective because there was evidence that counsel аbused drugs and alcohol, and counsel‘s impairment
In order to establish that trial counsel was ineffective, Williams must show both that trial counsel‘s performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced him to the point that a reasonable probability exists that, but for trial counsel‘s errors, thе outcome of the trial would have been different. Wright v. State, 296 Ga. 276, 284-285 (4) (766 SE2d 439) (2014). There is a strong presumption that trial counsel‘s performance fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance. Jones v. State, 296 Ga. 561, 567 (4) (769 SE2d 307) (2015). “We accept the trial court‘s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.” Wright, 296 Ga. at 285 (4) (citation and punctuation omitted).
The trial court rejеcted the testimony of Williams‘s witnesses regarding
In any event, Williams has not shown that trial cоunsel performed deficiently at trial. Williams failed to secure trial counsel‘s attendance as a witness at the motion for new trial hearing,4 making it extremely difficult for Williams to overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel‘s performance was reasonable. See Wright, 296 Ga. at 285 (4). Nevertheless, even if trial counsel was deficient for failing to introduce the enhanced video, there is no reasonable probability that it would have changed the outcome of the trial. Williams did not introduce the enhanced video at the new trial hearing, and co-counsel testified that the content of the enhanced video was the same as that played for the jury with only certain details having been highlighted. Co-counsel said that still images were made from the video, but no image ever showed Thompson carrying a gun. Because the enhanced video would have, at most, only highlighted certain details in the video recording that was played for the
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Decided August 14, 2017.
Murder. Hall Superior Court. Before Judge Deal.
Richard A. Hunt, for appellant.