Hewitt v. State, S03A1346.
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | HINES, Justice. |
| Citation | 277 Ga. 327,588 S.E.2d 722 |
| Parties | HEWITT v. The STATE. |
| Docket Number | No. S03A1346.,S03A1346. |
| Decision Date | 10 November 2003 |
588 S.E.2d 722
277 Ga. 327
v.
The STATE
No. S03A1346.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
November 10, 2003.
J. Tom Morgan, Dist. Atty., Barbara B. Conroy, John H. Petrey, Shawn E. LagGrua, Asst. Dist. Attys., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Jason C. Fisher, Asst. Atty. Gen, for appellee.
A jury found Carl Hewitt ("Hewitt") guilty of malice murder, felony murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault, and robbery in connection with the fatal shooting of Jeffrey Nigel George; Hewitt was sentenced for the malice murder, aggravated assault, and robbery. He appeals his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the permitted scope of cross-examination, and the refusal to allow evidence of the deceased victim's alleged violent reputation and bad acts. Finding the challenges to be without merit, we affirm Hewitt's convictions.1
The evidence construed in favor of the verdicts showed the following: On March 18, 2001, Jeffrey Nigel George's beaten and gunshot-riddled body was found in True Love Park in DeKalb County. Although breathing at first, George died shortly after being discovered. He had sustained gunshot wounds to his right front neck, chest, back left shoulder, and right hip, and a grazing wound to the right side of his neck. In addition, George had multiple abrasions and bruises as well as blunt impact lacerations to the right side and back [277 Ga. 328] of his head consistent with being struck with the butt of a gun. The cause of death was the gunshot wounds to George's neck and chest.
Three weeks before, George allegedly had stolen ten pounds of marijuana from Hewitt. A dispute between the two men arose as a result of this, and on the Friday before the murder, Hewitt pulled a handgun on George in order to "scare" him. On the night before George's murder, Hewitt and his brother Dania Hewitt ("Dania"), Antonio Montez, German Montez, and Roy Gabbidon gathered at a club. They displayed and exchanged various assault weapons in the parking lot of the club and then set out to find George. Although they were unable to locate George, they did see his truck in the parking lot of a liquor store. The truck was being driven by George's girlfriend. Hewitt approached the girlfriend, his handgun visible in the waistband of his pants, and took George's truck from her as "collateral" for the marijuana theft. He then drove off in the vehicle and abandoned it a short distance away.
The next morning, George and his friend, Theophilus Williams, were at Patrick Cuffy's house making arrangements to recover the stolen truck. Dania arrived at the house, and minutes later, Hewitt and German Montez arrived in a white Ford Taurus. Hewitt exited the vehicle, rushed toward George, and began violently punching him. Soon George fell to the ground, at which point Dania started beating him in the head with the butt of his AK-47. Hewitt began kicking George in the face, and shortly after that, gunfire erupted. Montez jumped into George's black Excursion and drove it to where Hewitt was standing near George. Hewitt then pushed George into the back seat of the Excursion and climbed in after, closing the door behind him. Montez drove off at a high rate of speed. Hewitt fired two
Afterwards, Hewitt celebrated by "high-fiving" with his friends. He told his friend, Harold Gallimore, that he had gone to Cuffy's house to "solve the problem" and that he had shot George. He stated that he shot George because the parties "were in a beef."
1. Hewitt contends that the evidence was insufficient with regard to all of the charges for which he was found guilty. But the contentions are without merit.
(a) Hewitt asserts that the evidence did not support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder because the State did not meet its burden of proof that he directly committed the offense or that he was guilty as a party to the crime of malice murder.
As to his direct culpability, Hewitt urges that the sole evidence [277 Ga. 329] that he shot George came from co-indictee and accomplice German Montez, and that he could not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. It is certainly true that an accomplice's testimony must be corroborated in order to support a conviction. OCGA § 24-4-8. "However, `whether the corroborating evidence is sufficient is a matter for the jury, and even slight evidence of corroboration connecting an accused to a crime is legally sufficient. [Cits.]' Klinect v. State, 269 Ga. 570, 572(1), 501 S.E.2d 810 (1998)." Vasser v. State, 273 Ga. 747, 748(1), 545 S.E.2d 906 (2001).
Here, German Montez's testimony that Hewitt was the shooter was corroborated by the evidence of Hewitt's animosity toward George, the fact that Hewitt had previously pulled a handgun on George, and that Hewitt had celebrated George's murder. Moreover, Hewitt's confession to Harold Gallimore that he shot George corroborated Montez's testimony.
Even if there was some evidence that German Montez fired the fatal shots, there was ample evidence to support Hewitt's guilt as a party to the malice murder. "Whether a person is a party to a crime may be inferred from that person's presence, companionship, and conduct before, during and after the crime." Marshall v. State, 275 Ga. 740, 742(4), 571 S.E.2d 761 (2002). Here, Hewitt's conduct before, during, and after the fatal shooting was evidence supporting the finding that even if Hewitt was not the trigger man, he intentionally aided and abetted George's murder. See OCGA § 16-2-20(b)(3) and (4).
(b) Hewitt maintains that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt of robbery because it did not show any use of actual force, intimidation, threats, or coercion in obtaining George's vehicle; he argues that there was only circumstantial evidence that George's girlfriend did not willingly turn over the keys, which did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save his guilt.
A taking accomplished by force or intimidation is the "distinguishing characteristic" of robbery—the "gist" of the offense. [Cit.] The force necessary for robbery is actual violence or intimidation "exerted upon the person robbed, by operating upon his fears—the fear of injury to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodard v. State, A19A1039
...James , 239 Ga. App. at 541 (1), 521 S.E.2d 465 ; accord Greene , 295 Ga. App. at 808 (5), 673 S.E.2d 292.10 See Hewitt v. State , 277 Ga. 327, 330 (1) (c), 588 S.E.2d 722 (2003) (holding that evidence defendant assisted in initial beating of victim and shoving him into the backseat of a ca......
-
Smith v. State, A15A0327.
...induces the victim/possessor of property to relinquish possession.(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Hewitt v. State, 277 Ga. 327, 329–330(1)(b), 588 S.E.2d 722 (2003). “Circumstantial evidence need not exclude every other hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt but......
-
Manley v. The State.Allen, S10A0136
...of the district attorneys and generally has broad discretion to grant or deny parole, as is correctly noted in Hewitt [ v. State, 277 Ga. 327, 588 S.E.2d 722 (2003) ]. See also Daker v. Ray, 275 Ga. 205, 206, 563 S.E.2d 429 (2002) (parole guidelines established and used by the Parole Board ......
-
Jones v. State, S05A1195.
...the finding that even if [he] was not the trigger man, he intentionally aided and abetted [the] murder[s]. [Cit.]" Hewitt v. State, 277 Ga. 327, 329(1)(a), 588 S.E.2d 722 (2003). In light of this evidence, a failure to prove which of the four co-conspirators was the actual shooter would not......
-
Woodard v. State, A19A1039
...James , 239 Ga. App. at 541 (1), 521 S.E.2d 465 ; accord Greene , 295 Ga. App. at 808 (5), 673 S.E.2d 292.10 See Hewitt v. State , 277 Ga. 327, 330 (1) (c), 588 S.E.2d 722 (2003) (holding that evidence defendant assisted in initial beating of victim and shoving him into the backseat of a ca......
-
Smith v. State, A15A0327.
...induces the victim/possessor of property to relinquish possession.(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Hewitt v. State, 277 Ga. 327, 329–330(1)(b), 588 S.E.2d 722 (2003). “Circumstantial evidence need not exclude every other hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt but......
-
Manley v. The State.Allen, S10A0136
...of the district attorneys and generally has broad discretion to grant or deny parole, as is correctly noted in Hewitt [ v. State, 277 Ga. 327, 588 S.E.2d 722 (2003) ]. See also Daker v. Ray, 275 Ga. 205, 206, 563 S.E.2d 429 (2002) (parole guidelines established and used by the Parole Board ......
-
Jones v. State, S05A1195.
...the finding that even if [he] was not the trigger man, he intentionally aided and abetted [the] murder[s]. [Cit.]" Hewitt v. State, 277 Ga. 327, 329(1)(a), 588 S.E.2d 722 (2003). In light of this evidence, a failure to prove which of the four co-conspirators was the actual shooter would not......