Sherrod v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20A0703 |
| Citation | 844 S.E.2d 508,355 Ga.App. 441 |
| Parties | SHERROD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Peter D. Johnson, for appellant.
S. Hayward Altman, District Attorney, Kelly J. Weathers, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Following trial, a jury convicted Ladarius Sherrod of one count of aggravated assault and one count of reckless conduct. On appeal, Sherrod challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and further argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior difficulties and his bad character. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth infra , we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,1 the record shows that on the afternoon of April 26, 2015, Sherrod and Lavonte Steele—who had known each other since childhood—were playing basketball at a local park with several other people. At some point, the trash-talking that often takes place in pickup games started up between Sherrod and some of the other people playing, and eventually escalated into a heated argument. Boiling with rage, Sherrod stormed off the court, got into his vehicle, and drove away. But a few minutes later, Sherrod returned, driving his vehicle right up to the court before parking. Then, upon exiting his car, Sherrod brandished a handgun, pointed it at Steele, and then fired a few shots into the air before getting back into his vehicle, firing more shots, and driving off again. And although one witness to the incident called the police, Sherrod was not arrested at that time.
Less than one week later, on the evening of May 3, 2015, Steele, a few friends, and several of his cousins were hanging out in front of a local pool hall called Fat Man's Lounge. A short time later, Sherrod arrived, and he and Steele resumed their argument from the previous week. Suddenly, Sherrod drew his handgun and began firing at Steele, who ran toward some parked cars to take cover. As the people crowding the street scattered in panic, Sherrod aimed his weapon at John Lockett, Steele's cousin, and started firing again. Immediately, Lockett ducked behind his vehicle, drew his own handgun, and returned fire. Sherrod then jumped into his vehicle and fled the scene. Meanwhile, Steele realized that he had been shot in the lower back and sought aid from another one of his cousins, who drove him to the hospital. By that time, a local resident who heard the shots called the police, who arrived shortly thereafter.
The State charged Sherrod, via indictment, with one count of aggravated assault upon Steele, related to the incident outside the pool hall; one count of aggravated assault upon Lockett, related to that same incident; and one count of aggravated assault upon Steele, related to the incident at the basketball court. The case then proceeded to trial, during which the State presented the foregoing evidence. In addition, the State presented evidence, via testimony from several witnesses, of a prior difficulty between Sherrod and Steele. In that incident, which occurred in January 2012, Steele attended a cookout at the home of one of his cousins, who lived down the street from where Sherrod resided. After the cookout, Steele and a few friends got into an SUV to leave and then drove by Sherrod's residence, where he and a number of people were gathered. As Steele and his friends drove by Sherrod's residence, someone in Sherrod's group threw something that hit the vehicle. The SUV driver immediately stopped the vehicle; at which point, Sherrod and possibly others fired several gunshots at the SUV before it sped away. And although the police investigated the incident, they made no arrests.
After the State rested, Sherrod presented several witnesses in his defense. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Sherrod guilty of the aggravated assault upon Steele outside the pool hall; not guilty of the aggravated assault upon Lockett that same night; and guilty of reckless conduct as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault with regard to the incident at the basketball court. Thereafter, Sherrod obtained new counsel and filed a motion for new trial. Ultimately, the trial court denied Sherrod's motion. This appeal follows.
1. In his first enumeration of error, Sherrod contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We disagree.
When a criminal conviction is appealed, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.2 And, of course, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, "we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt."3 Thus, the jury's verdict will be upheld so long as "there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case."4 With these guiding principles in mind, we turn to Sherrod's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.
In this matter, the State presented evidence that Sherrod fired several shots at Steele outside of the pool hall and that one of those shots struck Steele in the back. And while Sherrod argues that the credible evidence indicates Lockett was the only person firing a gun during this incident, "[i]t was the role of the jury, not this Court, to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence."7 So, here, the jury obviously chose to believe the several witnesses, including Steele, who testified that Sherrod brandished a handgun and fired it at Steele. Given these circumstances, the evidence was sufficient to support Sherrod's conviction of aggravated assault.8 Furthermore, the State also presented evidence that following an argument on the basketball court at a local park, Sherrod aimed a handgun at Steele and then fired shots into the air as he was driving away. Thus, the evidence was also sufficient to support Sherrod's conviction of reckless conduct as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault.9
2. Sherrod also contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior difficulty he had with Steele. Again, we disagree.
The admissibility of prior difficulty evidence is properly decided under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b),10 which provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts shall not be admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The prosecution in a criminal proceeding shall provide reasonable notice to the defense in advance of trial, unless pretrial notice is excused by the court upon good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. Notice shall not be required when the evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is offered to prove the circumstances immediately surrounding the charged crime, motive, or prior difficulties between the accused and the alleged victim.11
And for evidence of other acts, including prior difficulties, to be admissible, the trial court must find that:
(1) the other acts evidence is relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character, (2) the probative value is not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice under OCGA § 24-4-403 ("Rule 403"), and (3) there is sufficient proof that a jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the acts.12
Importantly, evidence of a defendant's prior acts toward another person may be admissible when "the defendant is accused of a criminal act against that person, where the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim sheds light on the defendant's motive in committing the offense charged in the prosecution at issue."13 And a trial court's decision to admit other-acts evidence "will be overturned only where there is a clear abuse of discretion."14
In this matter, during the trial, the State presented evidence of an incident between Sherrod and Steele that occurred in January 2012. Specifically, witnesses testified that Steele and others attended a cookout at Steele's cousin's home. Then, when the cookout was over, and Steele and some others left the gathering, they drove by Sherrod's residence, which was on the same street. As they...
To continue reading
Request your trial