Harper v. State, S15A1248.
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | HINES, Presiding Justice. |
| Citation | 298 Ga. 158,780 S.E.2d 308 |
| Parties | HARPER v. The STATE. |
| Docket Number | No. S15A1248.,S15A1248. |
| Decision Date | 23 November 2015 |
298 Ga. 158
780 S.E.2d 308
HARPER
v.
The STATE.
No. S15A1248.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Nov. 23, 2015.
Sharon Lee Hopkins, Duluth, for appellant.
Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Clint Christopher Malcolm, Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., Christopher Michael Quinn, Sr. Asst. Dist. Atty., Michael Douglas Morrison, Asst. Dist. Atty., Gwinnett County District Attorney's Office, for appellee.
HINES, Presiding Justice.
Mark Anthony Harper appeals from his conviction and sentence for felony murder in connection with the death of Rajib Sarkar. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.1
In his sole enumeration of error, Harper contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.
When evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the proper standard for review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). This Court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence. [Cits.]
Mickens v. State, 277 Ga. 627, 627–628, 593 S.E.2d 350 (2004).
The evidence presented at trial showed that Sarkar managed a convenience store and gas station. His wife, Stephanie, also worked at the store, usually in the mornings. Harper worked at a car wash next to the store and he and Stephanie developed a romantic relationship. Each night, at midnight or later, Sarkar would leave the store with a bag containing the proceeds of the day, and drive to his apartment, where he and Stephanie would count the proceeds; at
about noon the next day, Sarkar would deposit the proceeds in a bank on his way to the store. The proceeds were usually in the range of $2,000.00 to $4,000.00, and higher on weekends and the first of the month. Stephanie twice took Harper to the apartment she shared with Sarkar, and Harper asked questions of her about the amount of money Sarkar would have with him when he left the store and what time he would arrive home.
One of the State's witnesses at Harper's trial was James Clark, who worked at the car wash with Harper. He testified that Harper approached him with a plan to rob Sarkar. Like Harper, Clark had seen Sarkar leave the store with the money bag. Harper told Clark that it should be Clark who personally robbed Sarkar because Harper was too well known to the victim, and that the robbery
should take place in the parking lot of Sarkar's apartment complex. Harper told Clark that Sarkar was a small man and a pistol should not be needed, but Clark told Harper that he would be more comfortable carrying one; Harper said that Clark would not "have to do much to [Sarkar], just pistol-whip him maybe, and he'll give it up easy like that." Harper went to New York, but remained in contact with Clark. At 10:00 p.m. on October 1, 2011, a Saturday, Clark took a taxi to a location near Sarkar's apartment complex, walked to the parking lot of the apartment complex, and waited; he carried a .40 caliber pistol. By cell phone, Harper was in contact with both Clark and Stephanie, who was inside the apartment she shared with Sarkar. About 1:00 a.m. on October 2, 2011, Sarkar telephoned Stephanie and said that he was on his way home; Stephanie told Harper this, and Harper relayed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolbert v. State, S15A1073.
...the finger at the other. See Lamb, 267 Ga. at 42(1), 472 S.E.2d 683 ; Taylor v. State, 320 Ga.App. 596, 605(2), 740 S.E.2d 327 (2013) ; 780 S.E.2d 308Mitchell v. State, 312 Ga.App. 293, 298(3), 718 S.E.2d 126 (2011). And there is no suggestion that urging this defense on behalf of Leroy som......
-
Matthews v. State, S21A0318
...most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence." Harper v. State , 298 Ga. 158, 158, 780 S.E.2d 308 (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted). In addition to Matthews's admission that he stabbed Young, his cell phone reco......
-
Matthews v. State, S21A0318
...most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence." Harper v. State , 298 Ga. 158, 158, 780 S.E.2d 308 (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted). In addition to Matthews's admission that he stabbed Young, his cell phone reco......
-
Caldwell v. State, S22A0229
...from McPherson's apartment, which she noted was more in quantity than the money that the group had for the purchase. See Harper v. State , 298 Ga. 158, 160, 780 S.E.2d 308 (2015) ("Whether a person is a party to a crime may be inferred from that person's presence, companionship, and conduct......