Golden v. State

• Decision Date: 07 December 2020
• Docket Number: S20A1273
• Citation: 852 S.E.2d 524,310 Ga. 538
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: GOLDEN v. The STATE.

310 Ga. 538

852 S.E.2d 524

GOLDEN

v.The STATE.

S20A1273

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: December 7, 2020

Jeffrey L. Grube, for appellant.

George H. Hartwig III, District Attorney, Daniel P. Bibler, Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alex M. Bernick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Peterson, Justice.

Malik Golden appeals his conviction for felony murder for the death of Donell Hawkins during an attempted robbery.¹ Golden argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. He also challenges the trial court's admission of his custodial statement on the ground that it was not made freely and voluntarily. And he argues that the court erred in admitting hearsay evidence and in denying his motion for a mistrial when his co-indictee testified that Golden had committed a previous robbery. The evidence is sufficient to support Golden's conviction and the trial court committed no reversible error, so we affirm.

The evidence presented at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, is as follows. On the afternoon of June 28, 2016, Kendra Tillery drove with Golden, her boyfriend, to pick up her friend, Quantisha Parks, in Macon. Golden, Tillery, and Parks then drove to the home of Golden's mother in Warner Robins and met up with Golden's friend, Willie Walters. Tillery told Parks about a plan to rob Hawkins, a drug dealer who was staying at a Budget Inn in Houston County. They then drove in Walters's car toward the Budget Inn, parking nearby.

Tillery exchanged text messages with Hawkins in which she made plans to meet up with him. Tillery directed Parks, whose face Hawkins would not recognize, to go to Hawkins's room to inquire about purchasing marijuana. Parks approached Hawkins's motel room, carrying her phone in her back pocket to allow Golden, Walters, and Tillery to listen to her conversation with Hawkins. Someone at the motel told Parks that Hawkins was not in his room, and Parks returned to the car, but then went back to the motel room once Tillery informed her that Hawkins was either back in his room or on his way there. Parks asked Hawkins about purchasing marijuana, then told him she would have to return with the money for payment.

Golden and Walters then went to Hawkins's room. After confronting Hawkins, either Golden or Walters shot Hawkins one time. Law enforcement officers found Hawkins lying dead on the ground outside his motel room. Video surveillance recorded two men running away from the motel, with one wearing a ski mask and the other (identified by a witness as Golden) carrying a book bag. Tillery and Parks, who had been sitting in a nearby restaurant, picked up Golden and Walters after being informed by a bystander that there had been a shooting. After staying in Warner Robins for the night and dropping off Parks in Macon, Golden, Walters, and Tillery drove north. Walters stayed in New York, and Tillery and Golden went to Connecticut.

Although her testimony at Golden's trial was somewhat conflicting, Parks at one point testified that, while she was in the car with them, Golden, Walters, and Tillery discussed a plan to rob Hawkins. Parks testified that Walters brought the gun and two ski masks, giving the gun and one mask to Golden, but Golden reported to her that Walters shot Hawkins. Walters testified that Golden and Tillery came up with the plan, Golden provided the gun and a mask that had been inside a book bag, and Golden shot Hawkins. Golden did not testify at his trial, although the jury heard a video-recorded police interview of Golden in which he claimed that he went to Hawkins's room to buy marijuana, that he did not know that Walters had a gun, and that Walters shot Hawkins in Golden's presence.

1. Golden challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his felony murder conviction, arguing that the trial evidence fails to meet the standard set forth in

Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).² We conclude that the evidence was sufficient.

Under Jackson v. Virginia , we evaluate the sufficiency of evidence as a matter of federal due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by determining whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. Under that test, this Court views the evidence in the "light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence." Hayes v. State , 292 Ga. 506, 506, 739 S.E.2d 313 (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted).

The only specific sufficiency argument that Golden makes on appeal is that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his guilt "with the exception of the evidence improperly admitted." We address below Golden's claims that certain evidence was improperly admitted, but those claims do not affect our assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence. "When we consider the legal sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia , we consider all the evidence presented at trial, without regard to whether some of that evidence might have been improperly admitted." Virger v. State , 305 Ga. 281, 286 (2) n.3, 824 S.E.2d 346 (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted).

Applying that standard, there was ample evidence to convict Golden of felony murder. OCGA § 16-5-1 (c) provides that "[a] person commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice." In this case, the indictment alleged that Golden (along with Tillery and Walters) committed felony murder by causing Hawkins's death while in the commission of the offense of aggravated assault by shooting him with a firearm. Walters testified that Golden was involved in planning the robbery and shot Hawkins.³ Parks offered testimony that, while she was in the car with them, Golden, Walters, and Tillery discussed a plan to rob Hawkins. Parks also testified that "they" told her to approach Hawkins's motel room while calling them on her cell phone so they could listen to whatever conversation she had with Hawkins, later identifying Golden, Walters, and Tillery as those who were supposed to be listening. Although their testimony differed in specifics, Parks and Walters both testified that Golden had a gun and a mask prior to proceeding to Hawkins's motel room, and Walters said Golden brought the gun and a mask in a book bag. Video surveillance showed Golden carrying a book bag and running away from the scene together with another man following the shooting. Parks testified that she and Tillery picked up Golden and Walters after the shooting, which caused Hawkins's death. And the evidence showed that Golden left the state soon after the crime. See Coates v. State , ––– Ga. ––––, ––––, 849 S.E.2d 435 (2020) (flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself).

Moreover, Golden admitted in his video-recorded interview that he was present for the shooting, and the jury was entitled to reject his attempts to shift blame to Walters for the crime. See Vega v. State , 285 Ga. 32, 33 (1), 673 S.E.2d 223 (2009) ("It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence." (citation and punctuation omitted)). The evidence was sufficient to convict Golden of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

2. Golden next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his custodial statement. We disagree.

At a pre-trial hearing on Golden's motion to suppress, the State introduced evidence that, after Golden was arrested in Connecticut, Detective Mark Wright interviewed him. Before beginning the interview, Detective Wright read aloud from a waiver-of-rights form provided by the Connecticut police, and Golden circled and signed yes to indicate that he understood the rights; a question on the form about whether Golden wished to give up those rights and answer questions was left unanswered.

Following the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court orally denied Golden's motion, concluding, based on Detective Wright's testimony and the waiver-of-rights form, that Golden's statement was given without hope of benefit or threat of injury and that Golden was advised of his rights and appeared to understand those rights. The trial court purportedly conditioned its ruling on a review of the statement showing that Golden did not invoke his right to counsel, although the video recording of that statement was not played or admitted at the hearing.

The video of the custodial interview was played for the jury at trial over objection. The video showed that, after being told that he had the right to consult with an attorney before being questioned and could have an attorney with him during questioning, Golden asked if that included a public defender. Detective Wright responded that he was not sure what the process was in Connecticut or "if they come out here, but it's any attorney." Golden said that he understood that explanation. In denying Golden's motion for new trial, the trial court found that Golden voluntarily waived his rights and submitted to questioning.

Citing OCGA § 24-8-824, Golden argues that his custodial statement should have been suppressed because it was not made freely and voluntarily. OCGA § 24-8-824 provides that, "[t]o make a confession admissible, it shall have been made voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury."

The trial court determines the admissibility of a defendant's statement under the preponderance of the evidence standard considering the totality of the circumstances. Although we defer to the trial court's findings of disputed

...