Wilson v. StateWilson v. State
Fоllowing the partial denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, Nicholas Wilson appeals his convictions and sentences for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the November 2009 robbery of Cassandra James and her fatal stabbing in December 2009. His sole challenge is that the trial court erroneously excluded an out-of-court declaration regarding certain evidence in the case. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.1
Construed to support the verdicts, the evidence showed the following.
Wilson was incarcerated
Around noon on November 20, 2009, as Powell was having a telephone conversation with James, Wilson arrived at James‘s apartment located in Fulton County. Powell asked to speak with Wilson, and Wilson told him that he had been released early from jail and that he was going to go with James to transfer money into Powell‘s jail account. Powell never received the money. Later that day, Atlanta police got a call to come to James‘s apartment in conneсtion with “someone being bound in a home” and unable to escape. The responding officers found the apartment doors locked, but managed to enter the apartment through a window. Inside, the police found James on the bedroom floor with her wrists partially bound and her ankles duct-taped together; a phone, which had been under the bed, was on the floor next tо her. She told the police that her ex-boyfriend Wilson had robbed her and taken her credit card, EBT card, identification card, money, and keys to her apartment. In addition, Wilson forced her to disclose her PIN number. James further told the officers that she was “very fearful” of Wilson returning to her apartment because he had threatened to kill her if she called the police. While the officers were on the scene, James called the bank about her stolen credit card; she learned of multiple unauthorized transactions made that day, including two sales at retail stores and an ATM withdrawal. The bank determined that James was the victim of $1,160.04 in fraudulent transactions and credited her with that amount.
Following the robbery, James told her close friend, Janicе Kemp, that Wilson had come to her apartment, choked her until she passed out, and duct-taped and robbed her; during the incident, Wilson told her that Powell had “a big mouth,” talked too much, and related “all of [James‘s] business,” including that she received disability checks. James changed the locks on her apartment and obtained a new cell phone.
During a telephone conversation on December 14, 2009, a crying and angry James told Kemp that Wilson‘s girlfriend had come to her apartment and told her that Powell had impregnated another woman. Concerned about James, Kemp called her phone the next morning, but no one answered. Kemp persisted and eventually a man answered
The following day, December 16, 2009, Kemp went to James‘s apartment to check on her; she was accompanied by the apartment maintenance man. They knocked on the doors and called out to James but got no response. The front door was unlocked, but the maintenance man could not push it open; the man then unlocked the patio door, and Kemp entered. Kemp found James dead, blindfolded and slumped in her water-filled bathtub. The crying Kemp left the apartment, and the maintenance man called the police.
James had been blindfolded with two bandanas, which were wrapped around her eyes, nose, and mouth. She was stabbed seven times in her neck, puncturing her jugular vein and carotid artery. She also sustained a cut on her right forefinger extending from the knuckle to the web of the hand, which wound was characteristic of people trying to defend themselves while being stabbed.
The detectives called to the crime scene discovered that the front door to the apartment had been barricaded with a sofa, table, and two kitchen chairs. No weapons consistent with James‘s wounds were found in the apartment. There were drops of blood on and around the bathroom sink, which tested positive for James‘s DNA. The front door to James‘s apartment appeared to have been kicked in; the door framework was splintered and fractured, the deadbolt was rendered useless, and there was a noticeable footprint on the outside of the door. Detectives were also unable to locate James‘s cell phone or keys inside the apartment, leading them to suspect a robbery.
Detectives were informed by United States marshals with the Fugitive Task Forcе that they were searching for Wilson in relation to the November crimes against James, and that they had tracked him to a nearby apartment leased by Wilson‘s then-girlfriend, Monica Russell. When marshals attempted to take Wilson into custody, he tried to jump from the balcony of Russell‘s apartment. During a subsequent search of Russell‘s apartment, pursuant to a search warrant, investigatоrs found James‘s apartment keys and cell phone; call logs revealed calls between James‘s and Russell‘s cell phones December 14, 2009 through December 16, 2009. Photographs of Wilson‘s shoes were taken, and the sole print was found to match the pattern of the print found on James‘s damaged front door.
The police investigation also revealed a 2006 incident in which Wilson choked a female acquaintance until she lost consciousness and then left with her vehicle; the abandoned vehicle was later recovered. Subsequently, as the woman and her daughter were leaving their home, the woman heard someone scream, “Bitch, you called the police.” She turned around and saw Wilson, who then began to shoot at them; they rаn and called police. Wilson was ultimately convicted in connection with the case.
1. Wilson does not contest the legal sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. Nevertheless, in accordance with this Court‘s general practice in appeals of murder cases, this Court has reviewed the record, and we conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficiеnt to enable a rational trier of fact to find Wilson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Wilson contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the footprint on James‘s door was days old at the time of her death. But, the contention is unavailing.
In opening statement at trial, defense counsel told the jury that it would hear from James‘s property manager that a few days prior to James‘s death, she had gone to the rental office to report that someone had kicked in her door and to give her 30 days notice. After opening statements, the State raised a hearsay objection to the anticipated evidence, arguing that its admissibility would have to be considered under the residual exception to hearsay. See
The trial court said that based upon the circumstances then before it the defense should assume that the State‘s objection to the alleged statement would be sustained, but that the court had an open mind on the issue and would consider any additional evidence as to trustworthiness supplied by the defense and have further discussion of the matter. Defense counsel responded that “obviously” they “wouldn‘t be calling” the property manager if they “hash it out and it doesn‘t go our way” inasmuch as there was “no other purpose to call her.” No defense tender was made.
The record makes plain that the trial court did not make a “definitive ruling” on the admissibility of the property manager‘s alleged statement as contemplated in
In regard to a plain-error review of a ruling on evidence, the analysis consists of four parts.
First, there must be an error or defect — some sort of deviation from a legal rule — that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively waived, by the appellant. Secоnd, the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute. Third, the error must have affected the appellant‘s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means he must demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings. Fourth and finally, if the above three prongs are satisfied, the appellate court hаs the discretion to remedy the error — discretion which ought to be exercised only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Thus, beyond showing a clear or obvious error, plain-error analysis requires the appellant to make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 327 (3) (781 SE2d 772) (2016).
As to the admissibility of evidence under the residual exception to hearsay contained in
Such guarantees must be equivalent to cross-examined former testimony, statements under a belief of impending death, statements against interest, and statements of personal or family history. [Cit.] These categories of hearsay have attributes of trustworthiness not possessed by the general run of hearsay statements that tip the balance in favor of introducing thе information if the declarant is unavailable to testify. [Cit.] And they are all considered sufficiently trustworthy not because of the credibility of the witness reporting them in court, but because of the circumstances under which they were originally made.
(Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 422 (3).
However, pretermitting the question of whether the claimed statement by James to the property manager could have been prоperly admitted pursuant to
Judgments affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Decided May 1, 2017.
Murder. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge McBurney.
Andrew S. Fleischman, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Paige Reese Whitaker, Lyndsey H. Rudder, Arthur C. Walton, Assistant District Attorneys; Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott O. Teague, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Notes
A statement not specifically covered by any law but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness shall not be excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that:
(1) The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(2) The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through rеasonable efforts; and
(3) The general purposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
However, a statement may not be admitted under this Code section unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the advеrse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent‘s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.
(a) Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected and:
(1) In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or
(2) In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by an offer of proof or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.
Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding any evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve such claim of error for appeal.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were nоt brought to the attention of the court.