Harper v. State

Decision Date23 November 2015
Docket NumberNo. S15A1248.,S15A1248.
Parties HARPER v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

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 information to Clark. Clark hid under an automobile and when Sarkar arrived and exited his vehicle, Clark emerged from his hiding place and shouted to Sarkar to drop the money bag. Sarkar screamed, ran toward the breezeway where the entrance to his apartment was located, and Clark shot him three times in the back; Clark then grabbed the money bag and fled, arranging for a taxi to drive him from the area. The bag contained approximately $6,000.00. The next day, at Harper's direction, Clark gave Harper's share of the proceeds to a person who met Clark at a set time and place; Harper told Clark not to contact him after that. Clark later arranged for a relative of his to dispose of the pistol. Clark also testified that he and Harper had intended that the robbery take place at an earlier date, but that it did not.2

After being shot, Sarkar was able to use his cell phone to call Stephanie, who was still inside their apartment, and told her that he had been shot; she emerged from the apartment and called 911. Sarkar died shortly thereafter from the gunshot wounds

he received. Harper returned to Georgia and was seen wearing notably better clothing than he had worn before Sarkar was killed.

Evidence produced against Harper by the State included records of his cell phone communications and the testimony of two men who were incarcerated with him while he awaited trial, Sylvester Parker and Terence Cone. Parker testified that Harper told him he planned the robbery of a man who operated a store but that he could not do it himself because of his relationship with the wife of the victim, so Harper got "some young boy" to do the crime, and that it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Tolbert v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 23, 2015
  • Matthews v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 17, 2021
    ...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
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 17, 2021
    ...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 records a......
  • Caldwell v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 3, 2022
    ...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 befo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT