Propst v. State

• Citation: 788 S.E.2d 484,299 Ga. 557
• Decision Date: 05 July 2016
• Docket Number: S16A0275
• Parties: Propst v. The State.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

299 Ga. 557

788 S.E.2d 484

Propst

v.The State.

S16A0275

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: July 5, 2016

Reconsideration Denied July 25, 2016.

Frances C. Kuo, for Appellant.

Layla Hinton Zon, District Attorney, Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Walter Cliff Howard, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.

HUNSTEIN

, Justice.

Appellant Scottie Propst appeals his convictions and sentences for robbery and other related offenses. In his seven enumerations of error, Propst challenges, among other things, the constitutionality of OCGA § 16–3–24.2

. Propst claims, as he did below, that OCGA § 16–3–24.2 violates his right to equal protection under the Georgia and United States Constitutions. For the reasons that follow below, and finding no additional error, we affirm.¹

1. In two enumerations of error, Propst contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Viewed in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the evidence at trial established as follows. In October 2011, Propst's co-defendant, Adam Hacker, arranged to purchase roxycodone pills from Yvonne Parker and Ronya Crankshaw at the ladies' residence in Monroe, Georgia. Hacker, Propst, and a third party, drove from North Carolina to Monroe to complete the transaction.

Hacker testified that he and Propst, who was in need of money, devised a plan to steal the pills and money from Parker and Crankshaw. Upon their arrival at the residence, Hacker handed Propst a .45 Taurus pistol and told him to remain in the car and “stay out of sight.” Despite not having enough money to buy the requested amount of pills, Hacker went inside to conduct the drug transaction. Eventually, Hacker left the residence and returned to the vehicle under the pretense of retrieving additional cash. Once at the vehicle, Hacker and Propst reviewed their plan to rob Parker and Crankshaw; both men returned to the residence where, Hacker testified, he grabbed the pills and the money.

The two men ran out of the residence and attempted to drive away, but they got lost in the subdivision. Crankshaw and her friend, Silas Smith, gave chase in order to ascertain the tag number on Hacker's vehicle. They eventually caught up with the two men, who were still trying to leave the subdivision. According to Hacker, when Crankshaw and Smith caught up with them in a cul-de-sac, Propst climbed out of the passenger's side window and shot at the oncoming vehicle. Smith was shot in the neck, paralyzing him from the chest down.

The men drove off and, on their way back to North Carolina, they discarded the gun in a creek and agreed to tell law enforcement that Crankshaw shot at them as they were driving away.

Hacker and Propst were identified from photo lineups by Crankshaw and Smith. A .45 caliber shell casing was located at the intersection where the shooting occurred, and law enforcement recovered a large sum of money and the stolen pill bottles from Hacker's girlfriend. After his arrest, Hacker led law enforcement to the gun, which was later matched to both the shell casing found in the street and the bullet that struck Smith. Law enforcement subsequently searched the vehicle Hacker drove on the night of the incident and located a muzzle flash powder burn on the top passenger's side of the car.

Ronya Crankshaw corroborated many portions of Hacker's testimony. According to Crankshaw, Hacker initially entered the residence alone for a drug transaction with Parker; he exited the residence to go back to his car; and Propst and Hacker returned, stole the pills and cash, fled the scene and then shot at Crankshaw and Smith before leaving the neighborhood.

Finally, the jury also heard Propst's custodial statement wherein he told law enforcement that: he and Hacker drove from North Carolina to Georgia for a pill buy; he stayed in the car at Hacker's advice while Hacker entered the residence to conduct the drug transaction; Hacker came back to the car to get Propst; the pair entered the house together; Propst grabbed the pills and cash; the pair ran to the car and fled the scene; they got lost in the subdivision; and, that Crankshaw gave chase in her car. Initially, Propst denied having a gun in his possession, but he later admitted to having a gun, pulling the trigger from the passenger's side of the car, plotting with Hacker to dispose of the weapon, and then confirming their stories in case they were contacted by police.

(a) Sufficiency of the Evidence for the Robbery Convictions

Propst first argues that his two convictions for robbery as lesser included offenses of armed robbery are not supported by sufficient evidence. Propst contends that the convictions are based solely on Hacker's uncorroborated testimony that Propst knowingly and actively participated in the robberies. OCGA § 24–14–8

states

The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact. However, in ... felony cases where the only witness is an accomplice, the testimony of a single witness shall not be sufficient. Nevertheless, corroborating circumstances may dispense with the necessity for the testimony of a second witness....

Id. Furthermore, we have previously held that

sufficient corroborating evidence may be circumstantial, it may be slight, and it need not of itself be sufficient to warrant a conviction of the crime charged. It must, however, be independent of the accomplice testimony and must directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty. Slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participant in the criminal act is sufficient corroboration of the accomplice to support a verdict. [Cits.] Corroboration of only the chronology and details of the crimes is not sufficient, and there must be some independent evidence tending to show that the defendant himself was a participant in the crimes. [Cits.]

(Citations and punctuation omitted). Taylor v. State , 297 Ga. 132, 134, 772 S.E.2d 630 (2015)

.²

Hacker's testimony that Propst knowingly participated in the robberies was corroborated both by Crankshaw's testimony, Propst's own post-incident statement, and the physical evidence gathered by law enforcement. Although the jury may have discredited the portion of Crankshaw's testimony regarding Propst brandishing a weapon during the robbery, the weight to be given to her testimony as a whole was a matter for the jury to decide. Taylor , 297 Ga. at 135, 772 S.E.2d 630

. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Propst guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the charges for which he was convicted, including the two counts of the lesser included offense of robbery. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)

.

(b) Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Venue

Propst also argues that his aggravated assault, aggravated battery and weapons convictions cannot stand because the State failed to prove venue for these charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Similar to reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence of venue “in a light most favorable to support the verdict and determine whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed in the county where the defendant was indicted.” Chapman v. State , 275 Ga. 314, 317, 565 S.E.2d 442 (2002)

. It is well established that a criminal action must be tried in the county in which the crime was committed. Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI ; OCGA § 17–2–2 (a). The State can establish venue by both direct and circumstantial evidence. See Chapman , 275 Ga. at 317, 565 S.E.2d 442 ; Jones v. State , 272 Ga. 900, 902–903, 537 S.E.2d 80 (2000). If, in a case not involving murder, “it cannot be determined in what county a crime was committed, it shall be considered to have been committed in any county in which the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it might have been committed.” Twitty v. State , 298 Ga. 204, 206, 779 S.E.2d 298 (2015) (citing OCGA § 17–2–2 (h) ).

Here, while many witnesses testified that the initial robberies of Crankshaw and Parker occurred at 1422 Virginia Way, Monroe, Walton County, Georgia, the evidence established that the actual shooting occurred at the intersection of Virginia Way and Shadwell Lane, “just down the street” from, and in the same neighborhood as, that residence. Establishing the venue of a nearby site, in this case the residence where the robberies occurred, does not establish the venue for the remainder of the crimes. See Chapman , 275 Ga. at 317, 565 S.E.2d 442

; Jones , 272 Ga. at 903–904, 537 S.E.2d 80. However, while there is no direct evidence that the intersection where the shooting occurred was located in Walton County, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the remainder of the crimes occurred in that county. Specifically, the jury heard evidence that numerous officers from the Walton County Sheriff's Office responded to and investigated the scene of the robberies and the intersection where the shooting occurred. See Chapman , 275 Ga. at 317–318, 565 S.E.2d 442 (“In light of the well-settled principle that public officials are believed to have performed their duties properly and not to have exceeded their authority unless clearly proven otherwise ... the jury was authorized to find the police officer acted within the territorial jurisdiction in which he testified he was employed.”). Compare Jones , 272 Ga. at 903–904, 537 S.E.2d 80 (evidence of venue insufficient because City of Atlanta officers who responded to and investigated crime patrolled both Fulton and DeKalb counties). Moreover, evidence was collected from the intersection by the criminal investigative unit of the Walton...