Tony Williams appeals his convictions and sentences for malice murder, armed robbery, burglary, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, tampering with evidence, and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, all in connection with the shooting death of Clifford James McArthur. Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the alleged improper impeachment of State’s witnesses. For the reasons that follow, we find the challenges to be without merit, and we affirm.
The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdicts, showed thе following. On December 7, 2010, McArthur’s body was discovered inside his apartment in Fitzgerald by a man doing pest control; the man entered the apartment by the rear door because the
Upon arriving at the mouth of the culvert, Williams “climbed up in the sewer” and retrieved the handgun, which was wrapped in plastic bаgs. Shortly thereafter, Thomas paid Ward for the handgun, using the money provided by the police.
After further investigation, including interviewing and arresting Ward, the police interviewed Williams several times. During the first interview, during which Williams was nоt under arrest, Williams stated that on the night of the crimes, he, Ward, and others went to a Christmas parade and then went home; Ward left the home for a period of time and then returned; and when Ward returned home, he wаs “looking... weird, kind of strange acting.” The investigator then inquired about the handgun, at which point Williams asked if he could “start over” with his interview. Williams then related that Ward wanted his uncle’s handgun; that he was mad at his uncle for giving informatiоn about him to police, “getting him locked up”; that Ward was going to “dome” his uncle, which Williams understood to mean that Ward was going to shoot his uncle in the head; that Williams had accompanied Ward to McArthur’s aрartment on the night of the crimes and was supposed to wait in back of the house for Ward, but instead left the area; after waiting 15 or 20 minutes, Williams walked back to McArthur’s apartment, and Ward exited the back door of the apartment; Ward was “acting funny,” and when Williams asked him what was wrong, Ward told him that he had “domed” his uncle; Ward pulled out money from his pocket and gave Williams $60 of it; Ward was going to give Williams “half because [Williams] wаs part of it but [Williams] only took the sixty”; Williams was told to put the handgun “in the ditch”; and Ward had “picked up the shell casing from inside after he had shot [McArthur].”
A few days later when Williams was still not under arrest, he was again interviewed by the investigator, and Williams added some
Four days later, following Williams’s arrest and his being advised of his Miranda rights,
1. Williams raisеs the general grounds and contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdicts of acquittal. The denial of a directed verdict is reviewed under the standard used to evaluate the sufficienсy of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, that is, “whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the ver diet [s], would enable a rational trier of fact to conclude beyоnd a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.” Stratacos v. State,
2. Williams contends that the trial court erred by overruling his hearsay оbjection to the admission into evidence of testimony by Thomas about an exchange between Ward and Williams, namely Ward’s statement that “he didn’t want to never do what they did last Thursday again,” and Williams’s response, “I know right.” Williams relies upon former OCGA § 24-3-5,
For hearsay statements to be admissible under the co-conspirator exception in former OCGA § 24-3-5, thе State need not make out a prima facie case of conspiracy prior to introduction of the statements; the statements are admissible when the State establishes a prima facie casе of conspiracy independent of the co-conspirator’s statement at any time before the close of evidence. Thorpe v. State,
As has been outlined in the statement of facts, independent of the statements at issue, there was ample evidence of a common design or criminal purpose between Ward and Williams, including the concealment and ¿ttempted sale of the murder weapon and Williams’s inculpatory statements to police. The statements at issue were admissible against Williаms under former OCGA § 24-3-5.
3. Lastly, Williams contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to improperly impeach the testimony of two of its witnesses by eliciting testimony from an investigator in the case about cеrtain prior inconsistent statements made to police by the witnesses. He argues that the proper method to impeach the witnesses would have been to question them on the stand to give them the opportunity to explain the inconsistencies. However, Williams’s complaints are unavailing. The record reveals that Williams’s objection at trial to the testimony at issue was on hearsay grounds; he did not complain on the ground that it was an impermissible method of impeachment of the State’s witnesses.
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred in December 2010. On January 10, 2011, a Ben Hill County grand jury returned an 11-count indictment against Williams and Christopher Ward as fоllows: Count 1 - malice murder on December 2, 2010 (Williams and Ward); Count 2 — felony murder on December 2, 2010 while in the commission of aggravated assault (Williams and Ward); Count 3 - aggravated assault on December 2, 2010 (Williams and Ward); Count 4 - armed robbery on December 2,2010 (Williams and Ward); Count 5 -burglary on December 2,2010 (Williams and Ward); Count6 — possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony on December 2,2010 (Williams and Ward); Count 7 - tampering with evidence on December 9, 2010 (Williams and Ward); Count 8 — obstruction of an officer on December 9, 2010 (Ward); Count 9 - obstruction of an officer on December 9, 2010 (Ward); Count 10 - possession of less than one ounce of marijuana on Decеmber 9, 2010 (Ward); and Count 11 - possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer on December 9,2010 (Williams). In a bifurcated proceeding, Williams pled guilty to Count 11, and he was tried before a jury June 27-29, 2011 on the remaining counts against him; he was found guilty of all such counts. On July 8, 2011, Williams was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole on Count 1; ten years in prison on Count 4, to be served consecutively to the sentence on Count 1; twenty years in prison on Count 5, to be served concurrently with the sentence on Count 1; five years in prison on Count 6, to be served consecutively to the sentence on Count 4; ten years in prison on Count 7, to be served concurrently with the sentence on Count 1; and five years in prison on Count 11, to be served concurrently with the sentence on Count 1. The verdict on Count 2 stood vacated by operation of law, and the verdict оn Count 3 merged with that on Count 1 for the purpose of sentencing. See Malcolm v. State,
Miranda v. Arizona,
Former OCGA § 24-3-5 provided:
After the fact of conspiracy is proved, the declarations by any one of the conspirators during the pendency of the criminal project shall be admissible against all.
In argument, Williams further complains that the trial court failed to evаluate the reliability of the statements; however, such complaint is not preserved for appeal because at trial Williams did not object to the statements on the basis that they were unreliable. Dyer v. State,
The only contemporaneous comments by the defense regarding impeachment were not objections on the basis now urged. As to the investigator’s sought testimony about one of the witnesses, defense cоunsel merely commented, “Is it my understanding he’s impeaching his own witness?” In regard to the sought testimony about the other State’s witness, defense counsel stated, in pertinent part, “I mean of course this is hearsay ... is this another impeachment of his own witness? Is this - I’m objecting. It’s hearsay.”