Mills v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. S06A0090.,S06A0090. |
| Citation | 280 Ga. 232,626 S.E.2d 495 |
| Parties | MILLS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Donna Avans Seagraves, Jefferson, for appellant.
Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Edwina M. Watkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Timothy Grant Madison, Dist. Atty., Robin Rowden Riggs, Asst. Dist. Atty., Department of Law, for appellee.
Kenneth Augustus Mills, Jr. was convicted by a jury of felony murder, vehicular homicide, aggravated assault (five counts), and failure to stop and render aid after Mills intentionally drove his truck into another vehicle causing the other vehicle to roll over, killing the driver and injuring four passengers.1 On appeal, Mills asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts and that the verdicts for vehicular homicide and felony murder are mutually exclusive and cannot stand. Finding no merit to these assertions, we affirm.
Christopher Robertson was driving his pick-up truck in the inside left lane next to the median on Interstate-85 in Jackson County. His wife and three children were passengers in the vehicle; they were on their way to North Carolina where their eldest child was about to begin college. According to the testimony of two members of the Robertson family, two eyewitnesses in another vehicle, and an expert in the field of accident reconstruction, a white van, driven by Mills, came into Mr. Robertson's lane, forcing his vehicle off the interstate. To avoid contact with the van, Mr. Robertson rode off the road into the median, traveled on the gravel in the median for about a quarter of a mile, and then maneuvered his vehicle back into the left lane of the interstate. The white van, which was in the right lane, suddenly pulled up alongside the Robertsons' vehicle and once again forced it off the road and into the median. When Mr. Robertson attempted to speed up or slow down to get back into the lane, Mills would do the same, preventing Mr. Robertson from returning to the interstate. After about one-half mile, guard rails in the median blocked the path of Mr. Robertson's truck. Mr. Robertson, however, was able to get back onto the interstate in front of or to the side of the van. Mills then rammed his van into the back right tire or fender of Mr. Robertson's truck, causing it turn horizontal to the roadway. Mills never applied his brakes but instead continued to "T-bone" the truck, pushing it along the interstate. The truck began to fishtail and spin out of control, flipping over five times before coming to rest on the right shoulder. Mills left the scene. Mr. Robertson died in the collision and his four family members were injured.
1. Mills submits that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for felony murder because the fatal collision resulted from Mr. Robertson's re-entry into the path of Mills' van, and not from an act of Mills. Thus, he argues that his conduct was not the direct cause of the accident, as required under the felony murder statute. See e.g., Hyman v. State, 272 Ga. 492, 493(1), 531 S.E.2d 708 (2000) ().
The testimony was uncontroverted that Mr. Robertson safely reentered the highway without colliding with Mills and then Mills abruptly changed lanes, rammed into the rear of Mr. Robertson's vehicle, and pushed Mr. Robertson's truck along the interstate without applying his brakes. It was this act that formed the basis for the felony murder conviction.
The evidence, which showed that Mills directly caused the collision and the death, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Citing Flores v. State, 277 Ga. 780, 596 S.E.2d 114 (2004) and Jackson v. State, 276 Ga. 408(2), 577 S.E.2d 570 (2003), Mills asserts that his convictions for felony murder and vehicular homicide are mutually exclusive in that the jury found that he acted both with intent and with criminal negligence with respect to the same act.
"Mutually exclusive verdicts, which cannot both stand, result in two positive findings of fact which cannot logically mutually exist." Jackson, supra at 410, fn. 3, 577 S.E.2d 570. The indictment against Mills charged that he committed felony murder and the underlying aggravated assault by "driving [his] motor vehicle at Chris Robertson."2 The count charging homicide by vehicle in the first degree specified that Mills caused the death of Chris Robertson "in that said accused drove his motor vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property, by intentionally changing lanes when it was not safe to do so." In Jackson, supra at 411, 577 S.E.2d 570, we explained that an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon based on OCGA § 16-5-20(a)(1) () ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Springer
...702 S.E.2d 161 (2010), where the record showed the defendant's convictions were based on different acts, see Mills v. State, 280 Ga. 232, 234, 626 S.E.2d 495 (2006), and where we could determine from the record that the verdicts were based on crimes committed against two different victims, ......
-
Walker v. State
...The State also argues that the verdicts were not mutually exclusive because they were based on two distinct acts. In Mills v. State, 280 Ga. 232, 626 S.E.2d 495 (2006), we held that convictions for felony murder based on aggravated assault and homicide by vehicle based on reckless driving w......
-
Louis v. State
...Jackson, supra at 412, 577 S.E.2d 570 (citations and emphasis omitted); see Flores, supra at 784, 596 S.E.2d 114; Mills v. State, 280 Ga. 232, 234(2), 626 S.E.2d 495 (2006); Waugh v. State, 263 Ga. 692, 694(5), 437 S.E.2d 297 (1993) (reckless conduct is an instance of criminal negligence, r......
-
Waits v. State
...verdicts applies only where the convictions result from the same act involving the same victim at the same instant. Mills v. State, 280 Ga. 232, 234(2), 626 S.E.2d 495 (2006); Jackson v. State, supra at 411(2), 577 S.E.2d 570. Where the victim sustains several injuries, convictions for both......