Farris v. State

• Decision Date: 09 January 2012
• Docket Number: No. S11A1485.,S11A1485.
• Citation: 12 FCDR 95,290 Ga. 323,720 S.E.2d 604
• Parties: FARRIS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

12 FCDR 95
290 Ga. 323
720 S.E.2d 604

FARRIS
v.
The STATE.

No. S11A1485.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 9, 2012.

[720 S.E.2d 605]

Brown & Gill, Angela Brown Dillon, Norcross, for appellant.

Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., John Arthur Warr, Asst. Dist. Atty., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dana Elizabeth Weinberger, Benjamin Henry Pierman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

BENHAM, Justice.

[290 Ga. 323] Appellant Joe Lee Farris was convicted and sentenced for the malice murder and armed robbery of Olugbenga Ikuesan in Gwinnett County, as well as the aggravated assault of the victim with intent to rob, the aggravated assault of the victim by shooting him with a deadly weapon, and for being in possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.¹

[720 S.E.2d 606]

The State presented evidence that the victim was found in his red tow truck on a Norcross road the morning of May 9, 2007, having died as a result of a gunshot wound to the center of the back of his head. A 9mm bullet was recovered from the victim's head, and a 9mm shell casing was found near the front tire on the driver's side of the victim's truck. A detective conducting a consent search of the Carrollton home where appellant was staying in May 2007 found a black bag containing a 9mm handgun wedged into an area underneath[290 Ga. 324] the home's deck. The homeowner did not know of the existence of the gun and testified that appellant smoked cigarettes in the area underneath the deck. A firearms expert testified that the handgun recovered from the Carrollton home fired the bullet that was recovered from the victim, and a man acquainted with appellant testified that, the day before the victim was killed, appellant showed the witness a 9mm semi-automatic handgun stored in a black bag and told the witness that a man had employed appellant to kill the man. Also found in the Carrollton home among appellant's possessions was a wallet containing appellant's identification and a small amount of Nigerian currency.

In the tow truck with the victim were two cellular phones, and phone records revealed that appellant and the victim used their cellular phones to call one another several times from the early morning hours of May 7 through 12:35 a.m. on May 9. Appellant was identified as the man seen talking with the victim at 11:35 p.m., the night the victim was killed. Found in the tow truck with the victim was an undated bank deposit slip listing $850 cash and two checks, one for $50 and one for $90. The two checks listed on the deposit slip were found in the victim's truck, but the cash was not. The woman with whom the victim was living at the time of his death testified that, the day before he was killed, the victim had $1,000 he had withdrawn from a bank. The victim was found with his pants pockets turned inside out, and appellant, who was not known to have even $100, paid the Carrollton homeowner $300 in mid-May.

Appellant testified that he met the victim a few days before he was killed, that the victim had told him he wanted to die, and that the victim had given appellant a gun in a black bag. Appellant testified he returned the weapon to the victim before the victim was killed. Several people close to the victim testified he was in good health, was not depressed, and was days from departing on a long-awaited trip to Nigeria. An employee of a fast-food restaurant a mile from the crime scene testified appellant was in the restaurant from approximately 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. on May 9 and was not winded, upset, or disheveled when he arrived at the restaurant.

1. Appellant contends the evidence was not sufficient to authorize the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of physical evidence linking him to the crime. The appellate court reviews the evidence “ ‘in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving deference to the jury's determination on the proper weight and credibility to be given the evidence.’ [Cit.]” Manuel v. State, 289 Ga. 383(1), 711 S.E.2d 676 (2011). It is for the jury “to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.” Mickens v. State, 277 Ga. 627, 629, 593 S.E.2d 350 (2004). See also [290 Ga. 325] Rucker v. State, 268 Ga. 406(1), 489 S.E.2d 844 (1997). There was sufficient evidence to...