Colbert v. State

• Decision Date: 30 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. S02A1141.,S02A1141.
• Citation: Colbert v. State, 275 Ga. 525, 570 S.E.2d 321 (Ga. 2002)
• Parties: COLBERT v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

570 S.E.2d 321

275 Ga. 525

COLBERT v.The STATE.

No. S02A1141.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

September 30, 2002.

Brimberry, Kaplan & Brimberry, A. Lee Hayes, Mark D. Brimberry, Albany, for appellant.

Kenneth B. Hodges III, Dist. Atty., Kenneth A. Dasher, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Wylencia H. Monroe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BENHAM, Justice.

This appeal is from Melissa Evonne Colbert's conviction for felony murder and arson.¹After a fire was extinguished at his home, Clifford Murphy was found dead of multiple stab wounds.Murphy was known to sell liquor from his home and, for a fee, to permit people to smoke crack cocaine there.His empty wallet was found on the floor.Two knives normally found in his pockets were missing and a scarf was knotted around one wrist.The fire was started using a petroleum distillant poured onto Murphy.Shortly after this incident, witnesses Benny Lofton and Brenda Miller observed Colbert burning her bloody clothes and throwing a knife into the fire.She appeared to be high and had crack cocaine and a roll of money in her possession.After Colbert was arrested, she gave three statements.In the first, she stated that she was not present at the victim's house on the date of his death, and that she burned her clothes the day before the killing because they were dirty.In her second statement, Colbert said she went to the victim's house with Benny Lofton to buy liquor on the day Murphy died; that Murphy and Benny Lofton fought and her scarf came off as she tried to break up the fight; and that Benny Lofton stabbed Murphy, tied his hands with the scarf, and set him on fire.Her third statement was that she went to Murphy's home with Benny Lofton's nephew Jimmy, that Jimmy stabbed Murphy, that she helped tie Murphy after the stabbing, and that Jimmy told her to blame his uncle.Jimmy Lofton's denial of involvement was supported by the testimony of his roommate that he was at home at the time of the killing.The State put on similar transaction evidence which included a certified copy of Colbert's 1984 conviction for voluntary manslaughter, and testimony regarding two statements Colbert made to police officers before pleading guilty to manslaughter.In her first 1984 statement, Colbert testified that she and friends planned to steal drugs from the victim, but that she did not go into the house or have any involvement in the killing.In her second statement, she said that she went to the victim's house to trade cocaine for marijuana, but the victim took her drugs and sexually assaulted her; she left, obtained a gun, and returned for her drugs; and when the victim grabbed her, she shot him.

1.The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Colbert guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses charged.Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979).

2.In her only enumeration of error, Colbert contends that the trial court erred in permitting her statements to the police from 1984 to be introduced as part of the evidence of a similar transaction.To the extent that enumeration of error encompasses the trial court's decision to permit the introduction of similar transaction evidence, we conclude no error was committed.The State made the three showings required by Williams v. State,261 Ga. 640, 642(2)(b), 409 S.E.2d 649(1991): that the similar transaction evidence was being offered for a proper purpose, demonstrating Colbert's course of conduct; Colbert's identity as perpetrator of the prior offense was shown by her guilty plea; and there were sufficient similarities between the crimes in that both crimes involved drug transactions and multiple wounds to the victim.Because the trial court's finding of similarity was not clearly erroneous, it must be upheld.Smith v. State,273 Ga. 356, 357(2), 541 S.E.2d 362(2001).

But the gist of Colbert's argument is that the State cannot prove course of conduct by means of statements made after the crime was committed, but only by a showing of conduct before and during the commission of the crime.Contrary to Colbert's argument on appeal, however, Williams v. State,supra, does not limit the State, when it seeks to show a common course of conduct or scheme, to a defendant's...