Dyer v. The State.Rozier
| Decision Date | 03 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. S10A0276,S10A0709.,S10A0276 |
| Citation | 287 Ga. 137,695 S.E.2d 15 |
| Parties | DYERv.The STATE.Rozierv.The State. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Lee Sexton, Stockbridge, for appellant (case no. S10A0276).
Joseph S. Key, McDonough, for appellant (case no. S10A0709).
W. Kendall Wynne, Jr., District Attorney, Melanie M. Bell, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jason Charles Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Following a jury trial at which they were co-defendants, Xavier Dyer 1 and Christopher Rozier 2 appeal their convictions for the murder of Rufus Tony Richardson.3 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in both cases.
In the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that, on or around January 29, 2007, Xavier Dyer, Christopher Rozier, Liberty Harris, and Rufus Tony Richardson were fraternizing at Harris' home, and some of them were smoking crack cocaine. Willie Dyer, who is not related to Xavier Dyer, was also there for part of the evening. Harris testified that, while there, she told Xavier Dyer and Rozier that she believed that Richardson was a “snitch,” and she suggested that Xavier Dyer and Rozier place rat poison in Richardson's crack pipe to kill him. Xavier Dyer and Rozier did so, but it did not kill Richardson. Shortly thereafter, Xavier Dyer and Rozier left the house with Richardson, took him to a secluded area down Stewart Road, shot him, and left his body in some undergrowth. Willie Dyer left Harris' house at the same time, but he did so in a separate car from the others. After shooting Richardson, Xavier Dyer and Rozier returned to Harris' home and asked her if she wanted to see a dead body. When Harris asked who they were talking about Rozier told her that they had murdered Richardson. Later, Xavier Dyer and Rozier gave a handgun to Kendrick Eubanks and told him to hide it because “it had a body on it.” Xavier Dyer and Rozier, however, later retrieved the gun, and it has never been found. Richardson's body was discovered with several gunshot wounds, and he was still in possession of a crack pipe which tested positive for rat poison. Shell casings from a .9mm weapon were found under and around Richardson's body.
In addition to this evidence, police discovered a hat owned by Richardson in Rozier's trash, and shell casings found in Rozier's yard had been fired from the same weapon used to kill Richardson. Also found in the yard were a grill and aluminum cans which had been shot with a firearm. Similar transaction evidence was also admitted at trial which showed that, approximately one month prior to Richardson's murder, Xavier Dyer and Rozier drove Erica Brookin and Eubanks down Stewart Road and told them that they were going to kill them. At the time, Xavier Dyer had a .9mm handgun, and Rozier had a shotgun.
This evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to find both Xavier Dyer and Rozier guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
1. Xavier Dyer contends that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on the elements of simple assault. Specifically, Xavier Dyer argues that the trial court failed to charge the jury that simple assault requires an intention to commit a violent injury, and, as a result, the charges on felony murder and aggravated assault were also improper because they rely on the definition of simple assault. A review of the trial court's instructions, however, undercuts Xavier Dyer's contention. The trial court first instructed the jury: “An assault is an attempt to commit a violent injury to the person of another or an act which places another person in reasonable apprehension of receiving a violent injury.” The trial court then explained further:
To constitute an assault, actual injury to the other person need not be shown. It is only necessary that the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt an intention to commit injury to another person, coupled with the apparent ability to commit that injury, or that the other person was intentionally placed in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury from the defendants.
Although the trial court should have referred to an intention to commit violent injury to another person in this second explanation, the charge, as a whole, shows that the jurors were correctly instructed as to the definition of simple assault moments before the trial court's slip of the tongue. Under these circumstances, the jury instructions were adequate. See, e.g. Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771(2)(a), 482 S.E.2d 288 (1997).
2. Xavier Dyer contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that each defendant could be convicted of murder even if he were not a party to the crime and were merely present. The record does not support his contention. The trial court instructed the jury:
I charge you that if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that these defendants committed the homicide alleged in each of their respective bills of indictment at the time the defendant was engaged in the commission of a felony, aggravated assault, then you would be authorized to find these defendants guilty, one or all, of murder, whether the homicide was intended or otherwise.
Xavier Dyer contends that this instruction may have confused the jury into believing that all of the defendants could be convicted for murder regardless of intent if any one of them committed the crime. In other words, Xavier Dyer contends that the jury could have believed that mere presence was enough for a conviction. The jury charge as a whole, however, dispels this argument, as the trial court fully instructed the jury on the law of parties to a crime and emphasized that the guilt or innocence of each defendant had to be determined separately. Moreover, it appears that the jury properly understood the instructions of the trial court, as one of the defendants, Willie Dyer, was ultimately acquitted of all charges. Under these circumstances, there was no error. Id.
3. Xavier Dyer contends that the trial court improperly gave an instruction on sympathy which shifted the burden of proof to him and invaded the province of the jury. Again, we disagree. The trial court charged the jury:
The law does not permit jurors in arriving at your verdict to be governed by sympathy or prejudice. You may not, therefore, render a verdict in this case based upon sympathy for either party or prejudice against any party. Any verdict that you return must be supported by the evidence produced at trial without in any way being affected by either sympathy or prejudice.
This instruction neither shifted the burden of proof nor invaded the province of the jury. The instruction properly informed the jury that they could not disregard evidence in favor of their sympathy or prejudice. See, e.g. Heidler v. State, 273 Ga. 54(12), 537 S.E.2d 44 (2000); Duggan v. State, 225 Ga.App. 291(3), 483 S.E.2d 373 (1997). Moreover, a review of the charge as a whole shows that the trial court thoroughly and correctly charged the jury with regard to the appropriate burden of proof. There was no error. See Heidler, supra.
4. Xavier Dyer argues that the trial court impermissibly restricted his examination into the potential bias of both Eubanks and Harris.
With regard to Eubanks, Xavier Dyer argues that the trial court violated the precepts of State v. Vogleson, 275 Ga. 637, 571 S.E.2d 752 (2002), by limiting his cross-examination of Eubanks concerning any potential deal he had with the State regarding pending felony cocaine possession charges. The record reveals, however, that Xavier Dyer was allowed to ask Eubanks whether he expected any deal from the State with regard to these charges, and he repeatedly indicated that he did not have any deals. Nonetheless, Xavier Dyer contends that he should have been allowed to ask Eubanks whether he believed that the State had reduced his charge at that time from a felony to a misdemeanor. Evidence was presented, however, that this was not the case, and further cross-examination of Eubanks by Rozier showed that, although Eubanks had asked the officers who arrested him whether he was being charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, he clearly understood that the State was not going to make any deals with him. Under these circumstances, Xavier Dyer was fully allowed to question Eubanks, and there was no error.
With regard to Harris, Xavier Dyer similarly claims that the trial court limited his cross-examination in contravention of Vogleson, supra. The record shows that Harris testified for the State pursuant to an immunity agreement, and, although the State had offered her a plea deal of ten years, Harris had rejected the deal. When cross-examining Harris about her immunity agreement, Xavier Dyer asked Harris: Harris answered “no” to the first question and “yes” to the second. Then, when questioning Harris about her rejection of the ten-year plea deal, Xavier Dyer asked: “But [the State] offered you in exchange for your testimony ten years to serve not life in prison like everybody else is facing; is that right?” At this point, the State objected, but Harris nonetheless answered: “Well, I didn't kill nobody.” The State then explained that it objected to Xavier Dyer's reference to the sentence that the defendants on trial at the time could be facing, as that evidence was not relevant to the guilt portion of their trial. The judge did not rule on the objection at that point, but encouraged Xavier Dyer to find supporting case law. In further cross-examination, Xavier Dyer elicited an admission from Harris that sh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lafavor v. State, A15A0902.
...Ga. 290, 291–92(2), 667 S.E.2d 85 (2008)(punctuation omitted) (describing holding of Crawford v. Washington).36 Dyer v. State,287 Ga. 137, 140(3), 695 S.E.2d 15 (2010); see, e.g., Heidler v. State,273 Ga. 54, 62(12), 537 S.E.2d 44 (2000).37 Dyer,287 Ga. at 140(3), 695 S.E.2d 15.38 Id.39 See......
-
Milligan v. the State., A10A1343.
...preserve for appellate review argument that evidence should not have been admitted for a different reason); see also Dyer v. State, 287 Ga. 137, 143(9), 695 S.E.2d 15 (2010) (where defendant failed to object at trial to admission of evidence, his subsequent objection made in motion for new ......
-
Rozier v. Caldwell
...crimes in connection with the death of Rufus Richardson. They appealed, and we affirmed both of their convictions. See Dyer v. State, 287 Ga. 137, 695 S.E.2d 15 (2010). In 2011, appellant filed a habeas petition, alleging that his appellate counsel had been constitutionally ineffective in f......
-
Johnson v. the State., S11A0721.
...court did cover the fundamentals of simple assault. Viewing the charge as a whole, there was no error. See, e.g., Dyer v. State, 287 Ga. 137(1), 695 S.E.2d 15 (2010). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. 1. On February 18, 2003, Johnson was indicted in Fulton County for three counts ......
-
Table of Cases
...Devino , 902 A.2d 30, 96 Conn.App. 673 (2006), §§22.406, 47.300 Dutton v. Dutton, 18 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.App. 2000), §25.215 Dyer v. State , 287 Ga. 137, 695 S.E.2d 15 (2010), §§31.200, 46.200 Dyson v. State, 591 So.2d 559 (Ala.App. 1991), §11.700 Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003), §......
-
Table of Cases
...Devino , 902 A.2d 30, 96 Conn.App. 673 (2006), §§22.406, 47.300 Dutton v. Dutton, 18 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.App. 2000), §25.215 Dyer v. State , 287 Ga. 137, 695 S.E.2d 15 (2010), §§31.200, 46.200 Dyson v. State, 591 So.2d 559 (Ala.App. 1991), §11.700 Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003), §......
-
Table of Cases
...Devino , 902 A.2d 30, 96 Conn.App. 673 (2006), §§22.406, 47.300 Dutton v. Dutton, 18 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.App. 2000), §25.215 Dyer v. State , 287 Ga. 137, 695 S.E.2d 15 (2010), §§31.200, 46.200 Dyson v. State, 591 So.2d 559 (Ala.App. 1991), §11.700 Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003), §......
-
Physical Objects
...See also State v. Mack , 73 Ohio St. 3d 502, 653 N.E.2d 329 (1996) and Bently v. Scully , 41 F.3rd 818 (2nd Cir. 1996). Dyer v. State , 287 Ga. 137, 695 S.E.2d 15 (2010). In a prosecution for malice murder, shell casings that were found in the defendant’s backyard which matched those found ......