Redding v. State

• Decision Date: 19 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. S15A0985.,S15A0985.
• Citation: 297 Ga. 845,778 S.E.2d 774
• Parties: REDDING v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

297 Ga. 845

778 S.E.2d 774

REDDING

v.The STATE.

No. S15A0985.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 19, 2015.

Kevin Alan Anderson, Long Dai Vo, Georgia Public Defender Council, Atlanta, for appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Paige Reese Whitaker, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paul L. Howard Jr., Dist. Atty., Arthur C. Walton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fulton County District Attorney's Office, for appellee.

Opinion

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellant George Redding was convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the deaths of victims Ronnie Pierce and Victor Hill, who were shot and killed on June 19, 2007 and July 1, 2007, respectively. Redding appeals, asserting error in the admission of certain evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.¹

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdicts, the evidence adduced at trial established as follows. In the early morning hours of June 19, 2007, Ronnie Pierce was shot dead in the Mechanicsville area of Atlanta. Witness Lanera Cleveland testified that on the evening of the crime, she was with Pierce at an intersection in Mechanicsville known for attracting drug users, when they were approached by Redding, who accused Pierce of stealing a pistol. The two exchanged words, and Redding produced a gun and began chasing Pierce, shooting. Pierce ran onto the front porch of a nearby house and knocked on the door calling for help, but Redding caught up, shot Pierce, and then ran away. Two other witnesses identified Redding as Pierce's shooter in pre-trial interviews with police, but both recanted at trial, whereupon the State was permitted to show the jury the video-recorded interviews of both witnesses implicating Redding and corroborating certain details of Cleveland's account. Pierce died of his injuries, which the medical examiner opined were consistent with being shot from behind while running and being shot in the head at close range.

With regard to the Victor Hill shooting, witness Lashaunte Teague testified that, on the evening of July 1, 2007, she purchased marijuana from Hill in an apartment complex parking lot off Boulevard Place in Northeast Atlanta. Soon after Hill walked away from her car, gunfire erupted in the parking lot from multiple shooters. Hill was fatally shot, and Teague was injured by stray bullets. Witness Princeton Henry, a friend of Hill, testified that he was in the parking lot with Hill on that evening and saw Redding shoot Hill with an assault rifle.

The State also adduced similar transaction evidence from witness Christopher Thornton, who testified that, in September 2007, he witnessed Redding shoot victim Jura Tye in the street from close range with an assault rifle. Evidence gathered in the investigation of that crime confirmed the use of an assault rifle—as well as a handgun—and was consistent with a conclusion that the assault rifle had been fired at close range. Thornton also testified that, after the shooting, Redding told him he was just back from California, where he had fled because he was “wanted for a murder on the Boulevard.” In addition, Thornton testified that he had been threatened and attacked at the Fulton County jail, where he was being housed while waiting to testify at the Redding trial, and that he believed those threats and attacks were linked to his expected testimony.

A ballistics examiner testified that grey-colored bullet casings found at the scenes of the Hill and Tye shootings were from 7.62 x .39 caliber bullets that were manufactured in Russia. Bullet casings of the same type were found in a search of the Clayton County home where Redding was arrested.

1. Though Redding has not enumerated the general grounds, we have concluded that the evidence as summarized above was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Redding was guilty of all the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. Redding contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding the Jura Tye shooting on the ground that it lacked sufficient similarity or connection to the Pierce and Hill shootings to be admissible as a similar transaction. Evidence of independent acts is admissible only if the State establishes

that it seeks to introduce the evidence for an appropriate purpose; that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the accused committed the independent act; and that there is a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent act and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter.

(Citations omitted.) Wilson v. State,293 Ga. 508, 510(3), 748 S.E.2d 385 (2013). “In assessing the admissibility of similar transaction evidence, the proper focus is on the similarities, not the differences, between the separate act and the crimes in question.” Johnson v. State,289 Ga. 22, 24(1), 709 S.E.2d 217 (2011). Accord Abdullah v. State,284 Ga. 399(3), 667 S.E.2d 584 (2008). A trial court's decision to admit similar transaction evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Moore v. State,288 Ga. 187(3), 702 S.E.2d 176 (2010).

Here, the trial court conducted a pre-trial hearing regarding the admissibility of the proposed evidence and, at trial, heard testimony from Thornton outside the jury's presence prior to admitting the evidence in question. The court found that the State sought to offer the evidence regarding the Jura Tye shooting for the appropriate purpose of establishing Redding's modus operandi and course of conduct.²The court further found that there was sufficient evidence—namely, the testimony of Christopher Thornton—identifying Redding as one of the participants in the Tye shooting. Redding does not challenge these determinations, and we find no abuse of discretion therein.

Redding contends, however, that the trial court erred in finding sufficient similarities between the Tye shooting and the Pierce and Hill shootings to justify the admission of evidence regarding the Tye shooting. The Tye shooting was similar to the Pierce shooting in that, as the evidence reflects, both involved the assailant pursuing his victim, gunning him down, and then sealing his fate with close-range shots to the head. The Tye shooting was similar to the Hill shooting in that both involved the use of high-powered assault rifles loaded with the same type of foreign-made 7.62 x .39 caliber bullets. All three shootings occurred in high-crime areas of Atlanta, within approximately three months of each other. Given our obligation when assessing similar transactions to focus on the similarities rather than the differences between incidents, see Johnson,289 Ga. at 24, 709 S.E.2d 217; Abdullah,284 Ga. at 401, 667 S.E.2d 584, we conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of the Tye shooting. See, e.g., Moore,288 Ga. at 190–191, 702 S.E.2d 176(no error in admitting evidence of prior shooting at defendant's murder trial, where both incidents involved unprovoked gun violence); Abdullah,284 Ga. at 401, 667 S.E.2d 584(same, where both shootings occurred in close physical and temporal proximity and involved unsuspecting victims shot without provocation); Salahuddin v. State,277 Ga. 561(5), 592 S.E.2d 410 (2004)(same, where both incidents involved aggressive conduct that rapidly escalated and the defendant's use of a handgun to resolve differences with others). This enumeration is thus without merit.

3. Redding next contends that the trial court erred in permitting, over objection, the State to play for the jury a portion of a videotaped interview of witness Stanley Collins, in which he referred to Redding as the leader of a local gang. Prior to trial, the defense moved to prohibit the admission of any evidence regarding Redding's alleged gang affiliation, and the trial court ruled that such evidence would be barred except in the event of a witness' recantation. At trial, witness Collins, who had given a pre-trial statement to police identifying Redding as the perpetrator of the Pierce murder, first denied making any such statement, then claimed that his statement had been coached by investigators. To impeach Collins, the State was permitted to show Collins' video-recorded interview, in which, when asked how he knew Redding, Collins replied that Redding was “a neighborhood guy who.... run[s] the gang called 30 Deep.” Redding now asserts, as he argued at trial, that allowing this portion of the interview to be shown to the jury was error, as it served only to assail his character.

We disagree. The trial court properly admitted Collins' pre-trial statement, as a whole, to impeach his trial testimony. See Gibbons v. State,248 Ga. 858, 286 S.E.2d 717 (1982)(witness' out-of-court statement implicating defendant admissible to impeach that witness' trial testimony in which he denied making such statement and then claimed statement was extracted through bribery). While ordering the redaction of certain portions of the statement that described the gang in detail, the court allowed in the above-quoted portion identifying Redding as a gang leader, reasoning that the fact that Collins gave “very specific information” in response to the interviewer's open-ended question tended to show that Collins was not being coached through the interview. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this portion of the statement was relevant for impeachment purposes, and this is true even though the evidence of Redding's alleged gang affiliation may have incidentally put his character in issue. See Wolfe v. State,273 Ga. 670, 674(4)(a), 544 S.E.2d 148 (2001)(evidence of defendant's gang affiliation admissible, despite its negative reflection on defendant's character, where it was “relevant and material to an issue in the case”). This enumeration, thus, is without merit.

4. Redding...