Butler v. State

Decision Date03 May 2022
Docket NumberS22A0317
Parties BUTLER v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Jonathan Reuven Melnick, Jonathan R. Melnick PC, Suite 750, 3355 Lenox Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Michael Alexander Oldham, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Randal Matthew McGinley, District Attorney, Alcovy Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, 1132 Usher Street, NW, Room 313, Covington, Georgia 30014, for Appellee.

Warren, Justice.

After a bench trial that was held in March 2013, Cory Frayana Butler was convicted of malice murder and other crimes for his involvement in a home invasion and beatings that resulted in the death of Epsie Ewing ("Mrs. Ewing") and injury of her husband, C.F. Ewing ("Mr. Ewing").1 Butler raises four claims of error on appeal:

that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for malice murder; (2) the trial court did not determine whether Butler knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial; (3) Butler received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the trial court committed a sentencing error. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

1. The evidence presented at Butler's trial showed the following. Angela Jackson and Mr. Ewing had been engaged in an extramarital affair since 1999, and Ewing was informally giving Jackson $50 a month for a child she said was his. Ewing previously had told Jackson to stop coming to his house, but on May 17, 2009, Jackson, Ykescha "Missy" Walton (Jackson's niece), and Butler drove to the Ewings’ house so that Jackson could "pick up her child support money" from Mr. Ewing.2 After arriving at the Ewings’ house, Jackson sent Butler to the front door to pick up the money. Butler walked up to the door, expressed interest in purchasing Mr. Ewing's red truck, and requested $50 for Jackson. After speaking for a few minutes, Mr. Ewing gave Butler $50 in a money clip, and Butler returned to Walton's car to hand the money to Jackson. Jackson later testified that while driving back from the Ewings’ house, Butler made a comment pertaining to how much money Mr. Ewing appeared to have and said "if y'all wouldn't have been in the car, I would have busted his head down to the white meat."

Four days later, on May 21 at around 12:00 or 1:00 p.m., Butler returned to the Ewings’ house with J.J. Blackwell and Barry Partee. At trial, Mr. Ewing, who had positively identified Butler, Blackwell, and Partee in photographic lineups, testified as follows. After parking in the Ewings’ driveway, Butler and Blackwell exited the car, approached Mr. Ewing, and again expressed interest in purchasing his red truck. Mr. Ewing and Butler then went for a test drive around the block while Blackwell and Partee followed Mr. Ewing's truck in their car. Upon returning to the house, Butler said "don't try nothing [because] I got a gun on you." Butler then exited the truck and began "pistol whipping" Mr. Ewing and beating him on the head with a pistol. Butler "knocked" Mr. Ewing through the back door of the Ewings’ house, and Blackwell and Partee followed them inside.

In the utility room, Butler and Blackwell "started beating" Mr. Ewing in the face and head, causing him to fall. Butler also hit Mrs. Ewing, who was standing in the utility room, in the forehead with the pistol. Blackwell then grabbed Mr. Ewing in a "headlock" and dragged him through the kitchen and into the dining room. By that point, Butler had moved Mrs. Ewing onto the couch in the dining room. Mr. Ewing later explained that he assumed that Mrs. Ewing had been beaten with their walking stick, which he saw lying broken on the ground in front of her as she sat screaming on the couch, but that he did not actually see this occur. Mrs. Ewing said "[h]oney, just give them anything they want," and Mr. Ewing pleaded with "them" to stop hitting his wife. Then Butler, Blackwell, and Partee left the house through the back door, taking Mr. Ewing's wallet with them. Before leaving, Butler threatened Mr. Ewing, "if you call the law, I'll come back and kill both of you." At trial, Mr. Ewing positively identified Butler as one of his attackers.3

After Butler, Blackwell, and Partee left the Ewings’ house,4 Mrs. Ewing was "bleeding all over, her face and hands, her head." The Ewings’ walking stick was broken and was lying on the floor next to the couch. At Mr. Ewing's request, a neighbor called 911. A few minutes later, police officers arrived and found both Mr. and Mrs. Ewing "covered in blood."

Mrs. Ewing was flown to the Atlanta Medical Center, where she was admitted in critical condition and in a coma. A physical exam and CT scans were performed and showed that she had large cuts on her scalp, fractured facial bones, swelling and bruises on her face, and fractures in both arms. She died on June 23. After performing an autopsy, Dr. Lora Darrisaw of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, who testified at trial, determined that the cause of death was multiple-system organ failure due to "poor circulation [and] poor oxygenation" following the "blunt force traumatic injuries" that were inflicted on Mrs. Ewing on May 21. Dr. Darrisaw certified the manner of death as homicide. Dr. James Stevens, who treated Mrs. Ewing after the attack, also testified at trial and explained that blunt force trauma caused Mrs. Ewing's death, even though her preexisting conditions of diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, and deep-vein thrombosis likely contributed to it.

Walton testified at trial that after Jackson told her about the events of May 21, Walton asked Butler if he had beaten Mrs. Ewing, and Butler responded that he had not. Butler then asked Walton "did [she] love [her] auntie," referring to Jackson, and "how would you feel if she was dead?" Walton interpreted this to mean that Butler "might do something" to Jackson "like kill her or something" if she talked about the events of May 21 or Butler's alleged involvement. Nevertheless, Walton discussed the matter with a friend, who in turn called the City of Monroe Police Department and told police to speak with Jackson about the matter. An investigation led officers to obtain an arrest warrant and issue a "be on the lookout" ("BOLO") for Butler in connection with the home invasion and beatings.

On May 26, a Georgia State Patrol trooper—who was looking for Butler because of the BOLO—recognized Butler and began questioning him. Butler provided a false name and then fled on foot before being apprehended. Butler was arrested, and when a detective interviewed him, he denied any involvement in the Ewings’ home invasion and beatings, claiming that "he robs rich people" but that he "doesn't rob poor people." He also stated that a man named Richard Deloatch from Monroe was the culprit. But after the police spent a week searching for Deloatch, they concluded that "there appeared to be no such person."

2. Butler contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for malice murder because even if there was evidence that he struck Mrs. Ewing over the head once with a pistol, the evidence showed that Blackwell dealt the "fatal blows" to Mrs. Ewing.5 He further claims that Mrs. Ewing died weeks after the home invasion and beatings because of preexisting medical conditions that were aggravated by Blackwell's assault. According to Butler, the State did not present evidence that Butler was a party to Blackwell's conduct, and Blackwell's intent cannot be imputed to Butler as a result.

When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of constitutional due process, we view the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdicts and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted. See Jones v. State , 304 Ga. 594, 598, 820 S.E.2d 696 (2018) (citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318-319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ). We leave to the trier of fact "the resolution of conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence, credibility of witnesses, and reasonable inferences to be derived from the facts," Smith v. State , 308 Ga. 81, 84, 839 S.E.2d 630 (2020), and we do not "reweigh the evidence," Ivey v. State , 305 Ga. 156, 159, 824 S.E.2d 242 (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted).

As a matter of Georgia statutory law, "[e]very person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime." OCGA § 16-2-20 (a). Conviction as a party to a crime requires proof of a common criminal intent, which a trier of fact may infer from "presence, companionship, and conduct before, during and after the offense." McGruder v. State , 303 Ga. 588, 591, 814 S.E.2d 293 (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Felts v. State , 311 Ga. 547, 552, 858 S.E.2d 708 (2021). And "all the participants in a plan to rob are criminally responsible for the act of each committed in the execution of the plan and which may be said to be a probable consequence of the unlawful design," Williams v. State , 304 Ga. 658, 662, 821 S.E.2d 351 (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted), a principle we have specifically held applies to murders committed during the commission of "a crime that foreseeably [leads] to murder"—such as armed robbery—perpetrated by a group that shares a common criminal intent. Felts , 311 Ga. at 552, 858 S.E.2d 708. See also Moore v. State , 311 Ga. 506, 509, 858 S.E.2d 676 (2021).

Moreover, "we have long held, in numerous cases, that proximate causation is the test for malice murder." State v. Jackson , 287 Ga. 646, 649, 697 S.E.2d 757 (2010) (collecting cases). See also Stribling v. State , 304...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Caldwell v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 3, 2022
  • Peacock v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • September 7, 2022
    ...of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted." Butler v. State , 313 Ga. 675, 678-679, 872 S.E.2d 722 (2022) (citations and punctuation omitted). See also Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. When viewed in this light, ......
  • Harvard v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 2022
    ...to the records. So we affirm. 1. Evidence at trial.Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, see Butler v. State , 313 Ga. 675, 678 (2), 872 S.E.2d 722 (2022), the evidence showed that the victims were Harvard's stepdaughters, M. W. and J. W. M. W., who was 20 years old at the tim......
  • Park v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 4, 2022
    ...unless they are so unreasonable that no competent attorney would have made them under similar circumstances." Butler v. State , 313 Ga. 675, 684 (4) (b), 872 S.E.2d 722 (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted). And "deciding whether to call a witness ... is normally considered a matter of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT