Haynes v. State
| Decision Date | 15 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. A90A2155,A90A2156,s. A90A2155 |
| Parties | HAYNES v. The STATE. FLOURNOY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Richardson, Jr., Camilla, for appellant (case no. A90A2155).
Michael L. Bankston, Camilla, for appellant (case no. A90A2156).
J. Brown Moseley, Dist. Atty., Ronald S. Smith, John Tracy, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Defendants/appellants Rico Haynes and Alfonzo Flournoy, along with co-defendant Christopher Wilson, were jointly tried on an indictment charging them with four counts of aggravated assault. The jury found Flournoy and Wilson guilty on all four counts and Haynes guilty on count three. Haynes and Flournoy filed separate appeals to this court, which we have consolidated for review. Held:
Although not without conflict, construed so as to support the guilty verdicts, the evidence shows the following: On January 29, 1989, the defendants, sometimes referred to as the "Moultrie boys" were at a club known as AJ's Place or Jones disco in Mitchell County, Georgia. Also present at the club were persons known collectively as the "Albany boys." Haynes, a member of the Moultrie group, approached Leroy Wilson, a member of the Albany group, and stated to him that he was not involved in whatever took place that night. Flournoy then approached Wilson; according to Wilson, Flournoy had on a previous occasion robbed him at gunpoint. Wilson pushed Flournoy, who removed a gun from inside his jacket and began firing. Other members of the Moultrie boys also began firing into the crowded club. Leroy Wilson, Randy Donalson, Ernest Mitchell and Vernita Hartsfield were shot and suffered injuries of varying severity.
Various witnesses testified at trial that all of the defendants, as well as other persons identified as members of the Moultrie group, had guns and several witnesses testified they saw defendants Flournoy and Christopher Wilson fire their weapons. When police arrived they were told by witnesses that those involved in the shooting had arrived in a gray and white Blazer and that following the shooting the defendants disposed of their weapons in some nearby woods. Police officers found defendant Haynes sitting in the back seat of the Blazer with a loaded ammunition clip placed between his feet. A search of the woods uncovered an Intertech semi-automatic pistol, minus the ammunition clip, and a loaded .38 caliber pistol and four bullets. Officers also found a .38 caliber weapon with four "live" rounds inside the club and one "spent" round. The next day another weapon was found in the same wooded area.
1. In his first two enumerations of error defendant Haynes contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated assault of Leroy Wilson. Although it is true, as defendant argues, that none of the witnesses at trial testified they saw Haynes fire a weapon, several witnesses did testify they saw Haynes with a weapon during the shooting and witnesses at the scene identified Haynes as being involved in the altercation. Leroy Wilson testified that immediately following the shooting he overheard someone who sounded like Haynes, although he could not be positive of the identification because he could not see the speaker, state to the others that they should dispose of their weapons. When officers arrived they found the weapons used in the shooting (including an Intertech semi-automatic) in a nearby wooded area and they found Haynes sitting in the back of the Blazer with the Intertech ammunition clip placed between his feet. We find this evidence, as well as other evidence presented at trial, sufficient to support Haynes' conviction of the offense of aggravated assault, as a party to that crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. See OCGA § 16-2-20; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see also Lubiano v. State, 192 Ga.App. 272, 274(1b), 384 S.E.2d 410 (1989); Miller v. State, 174 Ga.App. 42, 43(1), 329 S.E.2d 252 (1985); Thompson v. State, 168 Ga.App. 734, 736(4 & 5), 310 S.E.2d 725 (1983).
2. In his next five enumerations of error Haynes argues the trial court erred in admitting, over objection, evidence of allegedly similar transactions on the basis the State failed to show sufficient similarities between the prior and subsequent offenses. " ' Flanagan v. State, 193 Ga.App. 408, 409(2), 388 S.E.2d 29 (1989). See also Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 396-397, 207 S.E.2d 30 (1974).
The complained of evidence related to a "drive-by" shooting of an occupied vehicle and an occupied dwelling. The prior offenses occurred at approximately 3:00 p.m. on the same day of the shooting at AJ's. It is undisputed that defendants in the case at bar, as well as other members of the "Moultrie boys" were involved in the earlier incidents. The same types of weapons were used in both the drive-by shootings and the shooting at AJ's; in the earlier occurrences defendants fired indiscriminately into an occupied vehicle and dwelling and in the later incident defendants fired indiscriminately into a crowded room.
Although Haynes suggests on appeal that the crimes are not sufficiently similar because he was charged with criminal damage to property in the first degree for the drive-by shootings and aggravated assault in connection with the shooting at AJ's, we do not find that distinction dispositive. The fact that no person was injured in the earlier occurrences was merely fortuitous. Moreover, the earlier incidents, as was the shooting in this case, were precipitated by previous "trouble" between defendants and the intended victims or the victims' associates or families.
" Flanagan, supra 193 Ga.App. at 410, 388 S.E.2d 29. This enumeration is without merit. See also Aaron v. State, 195 Ga.App. 339(1), 393 S.E.2d 698 (1990); Henderson v. State, 190 Ga.App. 243, 244, 378 S.E.2d 530 (1989).
3. Haynes next contends the trial court abused its discretion in limiting his cross-examination of Leroy Wilson. The transcript shows that counsel for co-defendant Flournoy sought to elicit testimony from the witness concerning where the witness had stayed the night before the trial, in order to impeach the witness by showing he was incarcerated for pending criminal charges. The trial court sustained the State's objection to the question on the ground that defense counsel's questioning of the witness was an improper method of impeachment under the best evidence rule. Haynes argues that the trial court's ruling was improper under the holding in Hines v. State, 249 Ga. 257, 259(2), 290 S.E.2d 911 (1982). We find no error.
In Hines, defense counsel was allowed to cross-examine the State's key witness about his incarceration and pending criminal charges against him "to find out if any deal had been made in return for his testimony and to find out if [the witness] might tacitly assume that he would receive some benefit by giving testimony favorable to the state." Id. at 258, 290 S.E.2d 911. However, the transcript in this case does not reflect that defendants sought to question the witness here about his possible bias or to expose his interest in testifying for the State, but merely urged that "it is proper impeachment of a witness to use pending ... charges, and that that could be done by cross examination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hand v. Pettitt
...906, 908(3), 467 S.E.2d 348 (1996); see also Lewis v. State, 234 Ga.App. 873, 877(3)(b), 508 S.E.2d 218 (1998); Haynes v. State, 199 Ga.App. 288, 290(2), 404 S.E.2d 585 (1991). Both the Damon Pettitt incident and the Phillip Pettitt chain saw incident occurred close in time after August 29,......
-
Thomas v. State
...Cal.App.3d 759 (1987); People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 186 Cal.Rptr. 734, 137 Cal.App.3d 90 (1982); Haynes v. State, 199 Ga.App. 288, 404 S.E.2d 585 (1991); People v. Mendez, 221 Ill.App.3d 868, 164 Ill.Dec. 321, 582 N.E.2d 1265 (1991), appeal denied, 143 Ill.2d 644, 167 Ill......
-
Waugh v. State
...evidence. See Williams v. State, supra; Childs v. State, 202 Ga.App. 488, 489(1), 414 S.E.2d 714 (1992); Haynes v. State, 199 Ga.App. 288, 290(2), 404 S.E.2d 585 (1991). Evidence that appellant had thrown a garbage can from the bridge and struck a vehicle just 15 minutes earlier was admissi......
-
Redding v. State
...Redding's custodial statements that defendant Gay had nothing to do with the alleged curbside drug operation. See Haynes v. State, 199 Ga.App. 288, 291(4), 404 S.E.2d 585. The factors a trial court must consider in exercising its discretion in regard to a motion to sever are (1) whether the......