Frazier v. State
| Decision Date | 06 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | S20A0226 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | FRAZIER v. The STATE. |
Randall Paul Sharp, for Appellant.
Samuel H. Altman, District Attorney, Kelly J. Weathers, Assistant District Attorney, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General,Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Katherine DeRosa Emerson, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.
Appellant Michael Antonio Frazier, Jr., was convicted as a party to the crimes of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of one of his accomplices, Quenterious Griner. Appellant's sole contention is that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm.1
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence at trial showed the following. On the afternoon of February 7, 2016, Griner died from a gunshot wound after a shootout between two groups of men at Kaolin Park in Sandersville. Earlier that day, Appellant's associate Madriquez Harper spoke on the phone with Harper's friend Tykima Lovick. Lovick testified that she told Harper that D'Andrious Brown had asked her to connect him with someone who could sell him some marijuana. Lovick had previously connected Brown with Harper for a drug transaction, and Harper told Lovick to give Brown his phone number, which she did.
Brown then told Lovick that he was planning to rob Harper. Lovick's friend Kenisha Riddle testified that she overheard this conversation because Lovick's phone had the speaker on. Riddle sent a Facebook message to Harper to let him know about Brown's plan. Lovick testified that she then called Harper to tell him not to meet Brown. During the call, Lovick heard Harper say, "I'm on the same s**t he on," and someone in the background say, Riddle also heard someone in the background – not Harper – say, "We got guns too." Appellant told investigators in an audio-recorded interview after the shooting that at the time of this phone call, he, Griner, and Brandon Seals were with Harper. Appellant acknowledged that a statement about guns was made, but he said that neither Griner nor Seals spoke during the call and claimed that Harper was the only man speaking. Lovick knew Harper and testified that his voice was not the voice she heard in the background; Lovick added that she did not think the voice was Griner's or Seals's either.
During the same interview after the shooting, Appellant said that after the phone call, Harper and his group, which had added a man known as "Hakeem," went to meet Brown at Kaolin Park. Harper had asked the group to accompany him for "safety," and although Appellant did not have a gun, he knew that Harper and Griner were armed with guns. Harper's group spread out around the small park. Appellant and Harper then approached Brown, who was sitting alone in his car in the parking lot. Hakeem hung back at the woodline of the park. Griner and Seals approached the restroom at the edge of the parking lot. As Seals kicked open the door, gunshots were fired out of the restroom. Brown then got out of his car, and Harper shot at him. Three men, who apparently had come with Brown and were lying in wait in the restroom for Harper and his group, came out and started shooting toward Appellant, Harper, and Hakeem, who ran out of the park together through the woods.
Appellant's cousin Ken Fragher was dropping off a neighbor, Nicholas Johnson, at the park at the time of the shooting. Fragher testified that when Appellant and Harper arrived at the park, they walked up to his car and talked to him and Johnson; Harper appeared to be armed. Griner and Seals also walked into the park from the woodline. Johnson told Appellant and Harper that he saw some men peeking out of the restroom, and then Harper said something to Griner and Seals, who began walking toward the restroom. When Seals kicked open the restroom door, gunshots rang out.
As Griner ran away from the restroom, he was shot once in the back by a .40-caliber bullet; he died at the scene. At some point during the gunfire, Seals was shot in the arm or shoulder. Investigators later found four .40-caliber shell casings in and around the restroom, one .380-caliber shell casing outside the restroom, and two 9-millimeter shell casings in the parking lot. They also found .22-caliber ammunition, a .22-caliber ammunition box, and a rod from a revolver in the parking lot. The .40-caliber bullet that killed Griner was matched to a gun that Brown gave investigators during an interview.
As Appellant ran away from the park with Harper and Hakeem, they encountered Lieutenant Wanda Peacock, a Sandersville police officer who was responding to a call of shots fired at the park. When Lieutenant Peacock first saw Appellant, he was wearing a backpack. Although Harper kept running, Hakeem stopped to talk to Lieutenant Peacock, while Appellant ran into a nearby house, then came back out a couple minutes later still wearing the backpack. Lieutenant Peacock stopped Appellant and searched the backpack, but found only a PlayStation gaming console. She then let Appellant go after she received a call that there was a "man down" at the park.
After the shooting, a group of people including Appellant and Harper gathered at Seals's house. Ricardo Burnett, a friend of Seals and Harper, testified that he heard Appellant say, "[Harper] and [Seals] and them was going out there to rob somebody and the guys who was at the park that supposed to have been robbing them about a drug deal ...." Appellant also said that Brown's group "wanted some weed or something, and they were gone rob them for money or something" and that "[Seals] walked up and kicked the door and the guys started shooting, and that's when they took off running."
Appellant did not testify at trial, but the jury heard evidence of Appellant's statements to investigators after the shooting. GBI Special Agent Thomas Bell interviewed Appellant twice on the day of the shooting in a non-custodial setting. Agent Bell testified that Appellant claimed in the first interview that at the time of the shooting, he was at the park playing basketball and had nothing to do with the shooting. In the second interview several hours later, Appellant changed his story and said that he witnessed the shooting and that "they were planning to meet there for a drug transaction"; Appellant also said that he and Harper were "posted on the woodline looking at the car, initially." In another non-custodial interview about two weeks later, the audio recording of which was played for the jury, Appellant admitted that he went to the park with Harper, Griner, and Seals, and he gave the account discussed above.
2. Appellant's only claim on appeal is that the evidence presented at his trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions. We disagree.
When we consider the sufficiency of the evidence [as a matter of federal due process], our review is limited to whether the trial evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; Mims v. State , 304 Ga. 851, 853 (1) (a), 823 S.E.2d 325 (2019). "Under this review, we must put aside any questions about conflicting evidence, the credibility of witnesses, or the weight of the evidence, leaving the resolution of such things to the discretion of the trier of fact." Mims , 304 Ga. at 853 (1) (a), 823 S.E.2d 325 (citation and punctuation omitted).
Clark v. State , 307 Ga. 537, 539, 837 S.E.2d 265 (2019). In addition, as a matter of Georgia statutory law, "to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused." OCGA § 24-14-6. Whether alternative hypotheses are reasonable, however, is usually a question for the jury, and this Court will not disturb the jury's finding unless it is insufficient as a matter of law. See Graves v. State , 306 Ga. 485, 487, 831 S.E.2d 747 (2019) (citation omitted).
To convict Appellant of felony murder and possession of a firearm...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lofton v. State
...robbery and thus a party to an armed robbery is culpable for felony murder if a fatal shooting occurs. See Frazier v. State , 308 Ga. 450, 453 (2) (a), 841 S.E.2d 692 (2020).Here, the State presented strong evidence of Appellant's guilt as a party to the charged crimes, and the jury was cha......
-
Fitts v. State
...the resolution of such things to the discretion of the trier of fact." (Citation and punctuation omitted). Frazier v. State , 308 Ga. 450, 452-53 (2) (a), 841 S.E.2d 692 (2020). In addition, as a matter of Georgia statutory law,to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved ......
-
Moon v. State
...disturb the jury's finding unless it is insufficient as a matter of law.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Frazier v. State , 308 Ga. 450, 452-453 (2) (a), 841 S.E.2d 692 (2020). Further, "[e]very person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and......
-
Harris v. State
...for the jury, and this Court will not disturb the jury's finding unless it is insufficient as a matter of law." Frazier v. State , 308 Ga. 450, 453, 841 S.E.2d 692 (2020).The evidence here, although circumstantial, was sufficient to convict Harris as a matter of constitutional due process a......