Mickens v. State

Decision Date01 March 2004
Docket NumberNo. S04A0275.,S04A0275.
PartiesMICKENS v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Ingrid D. Polite, Albany, for appellant.

Kenneth B. Hodges, III, Dist. Atty., Gregory W. Edwards, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Frank M. Gaither, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HINES, Justice.

A jury found Carl Mickens guilty of two counts of felony murder, arson in the first degree, burglary, and terroristic threats in connection with the deaths of Roderick Green and his young son, Roderick Green, Jr. Mickens was sentenced for the felony murders and for terroristic threats. He appeals his convictions solely on the basis of the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding the evidence of Mickens's guilt sufficient to sustain the convictions, we affirm.1

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. Cimildoro v. State, 259 Ga. 788, 387 S.E.2d 335 (1990).

Dean v. State, 273 Ga. 806-807, 546 S.E.2d 499 (2001).

The evidence construed in favor of the verdicts showed that Carl Mickens met Vickie Green in the fall of 1997, while they were both employed at a grocery store. Soon after beginning an intimate relationship, Mickens became violent toward Green. He would shove, pull, and bite her, and he also stole money from her. On more than one occasion, Mickens threatened to burn down Green's mobile home. Green became pregnant with Mickens's child. She decided to terminate the pregnancy, and when she informed Mickens of her plans to do so, he threatened that he would "hurt [her] without touching [her]." After Green ended the pregnancy, Mickens continued to telephone her and to try to see her.

On January 4, 1998, Mickens went to Green's mobile home and took her glasses, identification card, and keys, and ran out the door. Mickens's cousin, Tommy Baisden, drove him to a store, where Mickens made a duplicate of Green's house key and purchased lighter fluid. When Baisden asked Mickens what he intended to do, Mickens responded that he "was going to burn Vickie up," and "That b____ must don't know who she f _____ with. I will f____ her up." Baisden was able to dissuade Mickens from burning down the mobile home that day.

Green notified police of the theft but she did not pursue the prosecution of Mickens because she was afraid of him. Eventually, Green's mother persuaded Mickens to return the taken items; however, Mickens still had the duplicate house key.

During most of December, 1997, and January, 1998, Green did not stay in her mobile home because she was afraid of Mickens. However, Green's brother, Roderick Green, and his young son, Roderick Green, Jr., were sharing the mobile home with Green and still resided there. On January 31, 1998, Green was at her mobile home and around midnight she left to go to a club. She arrived at the club at approximately 1:30 a.m. and immediately saw her brother Roderick. Roderick left the club between 1:45 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., picked up his son from the babysitter, and returned to his sister's mobile home. At approximately 2:30 a.m., Green left the club with a cousin and traveled back to the mobile home park, where both women had homes. While dropping her cousin off at home, Green noticed that her own mobile home was on fire. Firefighters discovered the bodies of Green's brother and nephew inside Green's mobile home. They had died from heat and smoke inhalation.

Initially, investigators believed that the fire had occurred accidentally. Approximately a year later, authorities received information that the fire had been intentionally set, and further investigation revealed evidence of arson. Baisden made a statement to police about the fire. Baisden explained that he had not previously come forward to the police because he feared he would be accused of setting the fire. He stated that he drove Mickens to the home of Marie Dowell, a cousin of both Mickens and Baisden, on January 31, 1998. After staying at Dowell's house for some time that evening, Mickens asked Baisden to drive him to Green's house. Once there, Mickens entered the mobile home with the key he had previously copied, while Baisden fell asleep in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Cox v. State, No. S04A2060
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 14 Marzo 2005
    ...whether the evidence, when viewed most favorably to the jurors' determination, is sufficient to authorize the verdict. Mickens v. State, 277 Ga. 627, 593 S.E.2d 350 (2004); Smith v. State, 277 Ga. 213, 214(1), 586 S.E.2d 639 (2003). When construed most strongly in support of the jury's verd......
  • Cisneros v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 17 Octubre 2016
    ...with deference to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence.(Citations omitted.) Mickens v. State, 277 Ga. 627, 627–628, 593 S.E.2d 350 (2004).OCGA § 16–6–22.1 (b) defines the offense of sexual battery as "intentional[ ] ... physical contact with the intimate parts......
  • Davis v. the State.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 17 Febrero 2011
    ...to prove lack of authority to enter a dwelling place). 15. OCGA § 16–5–21(a)(2). 16. OCGA § 16–5–20(a). 17. See Mickens v. State, 277 Ga. 627, 629, 593 S.E.2d 350 (2004) (the jury determines the credibility of the witnesses and resolves evidentiary conflicts or inconsistencies). 18. See Cra......
  • Vega v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 9 Febrero 2009
    ...determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. [Cits.]" Mickens v. State, 277 Ga. 627-629, 593 S.E.2d 350 (2004). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find ......
  • 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