Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | S22A0069, S22A0380 |
| Parties | JONES v. The STATE. McFarland v. The State. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael Wayne Tarleton, Tarleton Law, LLC, 1800 Peachtree Rd NW, Suite 300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, David Joseph Walker, Georgia Public Defender Council Appellate Division, PO Box 7624, Macon, Georgia 31209, for Appellant in S22A0069.
Marie Taylor Pardue, Thomas Moffett Flournoy, III, Georgia Public Defender Council, 420 10th Street, Columbus, Georgia 31901, for Appellant in S22A0380.
Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, William C. Enfinger, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Mark Preston Jones, P.O. Box 427, Columbus, Georgia 31901, Frederick Lewis, A.D.A., Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, 100 10th Street, Columbus, Georgia 31901, Alonza Whitaker, A.D.A., Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, P. O. Box 1340, Columbus, Georgia 31902-1340, for Appellee.
Appellants Xzavaien Jones and Terrell McFarland were tried jointly and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Anthony Meredith.1 Both men appeal and raise numerous trial court errors, including the removal of a dissenting juror during deliberations. Although the record may well have supported findings authorizing the trial court to remove the juror, the findings that the trial court actually made and to which our review is limited were not sufficient to justify removal. Because the trial court abused its discretion in removing the juror, we reverse.2
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence at trial showed that, at all relevant times, Jones and McFarland were members of the Crips gang along with Christopher Twitty, who
was in a relationship with Tekoa Young, Jones's sister. In November 2015, Twitty was shot and killed at his house. Young believed that Meredith was the culprit because he had been in a drug-related dispute with Twitty. After Twitty's death, Young called Shanna Douglas, who was Young's best friend and Meredith's girlfriend. During that phone call, Young told Douglas that "[Young] wasn't going to be the only one crying."
On the evening of March 26, 2016, Devon Wynn was at Peachtree Mall in Columbus. Wynn, who knew both Meredith and Jones, saw Meredith near the food court entrance to the mall. Meredith was talking to Jones, another man, and a woman. Wynn was walking toward the group to greet Meredith when he saw Jones shoot Meredith. A nearby witness heard a man, whom he later identified as Jones, yell "f**k n***er, f**k n***er" at Meredith, followed by multiple gunshots. The witness then heard Jones say, "Come on, let's go," and saw Jones and another man sprint to a parked car and drive off.
Officers obtained a surveillance video recording from the mall's parking lot from the evening of March 26. Douglas identified Young and Jones in the surveillance video at trial. The video showed that Young drove into the parking lot, got out of her car and paced while talking on a cellphone. Shortly thereafter, Jones and another man arrived at the mall together and parked a few spots away. The group talked briefly and then approached Meredith. Jones shot Meredith multiple times. The group then ran back to their respective vehicles and drove away.
After the shooting, Young spoke to police officers. She arrived at the police station driving a car that matched the car that she was seen driving in the surveillance video of the murder. Young denied any involvement in the shooting, telling officers that, on the afternoon of March 26, she left work and drove straight to a strip mall to do some shopping. Surveillance video from the strip mall recorded after the shooting showed Young wearing the same clothes that she had on in the surveillance video from Peachtree Mall. Police officers also interviewed McFarland. He denied being at the mall on the day of the shooting. He did admit knowing Meredith, being a member of the Crips gang, and knowing about the escalating dispute between Meredith and Twitty.
Cellphone data introduced at trial showed that the cellphones associated with Jones, McFarland, and Young were all in the area of Peachtree Mall at the time of the shooting. Young's phone placed three calls right after the shooting, two to McFarland and one to Jones. Young also sent McFarland a text message (which Young subsequently deleted) asking "y'all good?" Investigators found that Young had deleted other post-shooting texts from her phone. In one deleted text, Young admitted being at the mall, and in another, Jones sent Young the address of 6351 Birling Drive. After the shooting, McFarland's and Jones's phones traveled east and stopped in the area of 6351 Birling Drive. Meanwhile, Young's phone traveled approximately three miles away to a strip mall.
Meredith's autopsy revealed that he suffered ten gunshot wounds. The majority of the wounds were back to front, indicating that he was shot in the back several times. The medical examiner concluded that the manner of death was homicide caused by multiple gunshot wounds. The State also called an expert in criminal gang activity who testified that, based on statements the defendants made to law enforcement officers, their tattoos, their association before and after the crime, and their social media posts, Jones and McFarland were associated with the Crips gang. He further opined that the shooting was consistent with a retaliatory act required by the rules of the gang that would also increase Jones's and McFarland's status within the gang's structure.
2. Jones and McFarland assert that the trial court abused its discretion when it removed the jury foreperson after deliberations had started. We agree.
(a) The record shows that the jury was sent out for deliberations at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 2017. The jury voted for a foreperson (L.M.) and then requested to return in the morning to begin deliberating. The trial court agreed and dismissed the jury for the night. Deliberations began on April 27 at 9:05 a.m. The jury sent the court three notes at 10:46, 11:07, and 11:26 a.m., requesting to view certain video evidence. The court then informed the jurors that it would break for lunch and return at 1:00 p.m. to review the evidence. After court resumed, but before the jury reviewed the video, the court received two more notes. Relevant to the claim at issue here was the second note, which the court labeled Jury Question 7. This note, which the record reflects was written by L.M., stated:
The trial court called the jurors into the courtroom and allowed them to review the requested video evidence. They were then sent back to the jury room to deliberate, and the judge conferred with the parties regarding the proper response to Jury Question 7. Thereafter, the court called the jury back into the courtroom and gave the following instruction:
If you'll recall, yesterday I charged you with the law that applies to the case, and also supplied you with two copies of that law.[3 ] I will instruct you to continue to deliberate. If you have questions, refer to the law that I've charged you with, determine the law, apply the law to the facts and the facts to the law to reach your verdict.
The jury returned to the jury room to continue deliberations.
At 5:04 p.m., the court received Jury Question 8, which stated: Then, at 5:07 p.m., the judge received Jury Question 9 that stated: 4 The court instructed the jury to continue to deliberate. About 20 minutes later, the jury asked to be excused for the evening and return to deliberate in the morning. The court agreed and dismissed everyone for the night.
The jury resumed deliberating at 9:00 a.m. on April 28. At 10:31 a.m., L.M. sent the judge a note that stated, "we have taken a vote, more than once ... and we cannot reach [a] unanimous vote on any of the 13 charges." Attached to the note was an incomplete tally of the guilty votes for the various charges for each defendant, which indicated that the jury was split on many of the charges. In response to this note, the trial court again instructed the jury to continue its deliberations. The trial court received another note at 11:20 a.m. from L.M. that was marked "Personal to Judge." It read:
I'm not sure if I have a different understanding of the law or what. I honestly feel that they do have some evidence but not enough for me to say guilty. I'm not sure if I have a different concept of how things work or what[ ] my duty here is, I have been through the evidence[;] we have went over it. I'm not sure what y[’]all want from me, only thing happening now is, I'm getting force[d] to follow what everyone else is saying. Can I be switch[ed] with an alternate so y[’]all can get the answer you're looking for. I'm firm! This is from [L.M.] alone, writing this.
The trial court had extensive discussions with the parties regarding how it should proceed. During those discussions, McFarland, as well as Young, moved for a mistrial. Without ruling on the motions, the trial court eventually decided to conduct an inquiry.
The trial court brought in the jury and asked L.M. for clarification on the tally. L.M. stated that "someone else took the tallies and did all that, I just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. State
...infer his criminal intent from his "presence, companionship, and conduct before, during, and after the offense." Jones v. State , 314 Ga. 214, 231-32 (3), 875 S.E.2d 737 (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find both that Willis's co......
-
Willis v. State
...with the group before and after the crimes, and his later disavowal of both his own cell-phone number and of knowing Jordan. See Jones, 314 Ga. at 232 (3) (citation and punctuation omitted). Compare Taylor State, 297 Ga. 132, 135 (2) (772 S.E.2d 630) (2015) (evidence of guilt insufficient w......
-
Williams v. State
... ... not enough to convict him as a party to the crime, the jury ... may infer his criminal intent from his "presence, ... companionship, and conduct before, during, and after the ... offense." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones ... v. State , 314 Ga. 214, 231-232 (3) (875 S.E.2d 737) ... (2022) ... Viewed ... in the light most favorable to the jury's verdicts, the ... evidence presented at trial showed the following. At the time ... of his October 4, 2019 death, ... ...
-
McCoy v. State
...convict Appellant on the basis of his "presence, companionship, and conduct" with Favors "before, during, and after the offense." Jones, 314 Ga. at 232 (3) and punctuation omitted). Further, a conviction can rest on circumstantial evidence alone if that evidence "exclude[s] every other reas......