Simpson v. State

Decision Date11 September 1995
Docket NumberNo. S95A0949,S95A0949
Citation461 S.E.2d 210,265 Ga. 665
PartiesSIMPSON v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Dwight H. May, Moultrie, for Simpson.

H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., Valdosta, Charles M. Stines, Asst. Dist. Atty., Moultrie, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for State.

Rachelle L. Strausner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta.

THOMPSON, Justice.

Lonnie Simpson, Jr. was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, in connection with the shooting death of DeMarco Jackson. 1

Simpson's sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), to establish his guilt as a party to the crimes.

Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, it was established that the defendant shared a home with his cousin Milo Simpson (the shooter), and Terrance Williams. 2 Milo and the victim previously had been involved in an altercation during which the victim threatened to shoot Milo.

Earlier in the day of the shooting, the defendant and Milo purchased .38 caliber bullets to fit the revolver used in the shooting. Later that night, the defendant, Milo and Terrance were at home along with a friend, Michael Bowman. The defendant observed the victim walking past the house, pointed him out to the others and suggested that they fight him. He instructed Milo to get a gun from the back room; Milo loaded the gun in the defendant's presence. The four then left the house in pursuit of the victim; Milo was armed with the loaded gun. Upon reaching the victim, the defendant and Michael separated from Milo and Terrance. Milo approached the victim with his gun in hand. The victim fell to the ground and pleaded for his life, whereupon Milo fired five shots into his body, fatally wounding him. The defendant stood at a nearby street corner; Milo handed him the gun as they fled the scene. The defendant testified that Milo had a duty to confront the victim "to get his manhood back, because [the victim] had pulled a gun on him before."

While mere presence at the scene and approval of a crime not amounting to encouragement is insufficient to authorize conviction as a party to a crime under OCGA § 16-2-20(b)(4), "criminal intent may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime." Sands v. State, 262 Ga. 367, 368(2), 418 S.E.2d 55 (1992). A jury could infer from the defendant's conduct throughout the day of the shooting that he intentionally advised, encouraged and counseled Milo to murder DeMarco Jackson. Sufficient evidence existed for the jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Sharpe v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 30, 2000
    ...or counseled the others to commit that crime. See Johnson v. State, 269 Ga. 632, 634, 501 S.E.2d 815 (1998); Simpson v. State, 265 Ga. 665-666, 461 S.E.2d 210 (1995); Satterfield v. State, 256 Ga. 593, 594(1), 351 S.E.2d 625 (1987). Appellants particularly attack the credibility of Ms. Toby......
  • Powell v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 15, 2012
    ...294 (2011) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Hill v. State, 281 Ga. 795, 797(1)(a), 642 S.E.2d 64 (2007); Simpson v. State, 265 Ga. 665, 665–666, 461 S.E.2d 210 (1995). Here, even assuming that Shockley, not Powell, fired the fatal shot, the evidence shows that Powell and Shockle......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 5, 2012
    ...a crime ... criminal intent may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime.” Simpson v. State, 265 Ga. 665, 665–666, 461 S.E.2d 210 (1995) (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, one reasonably might infer from the evidence concerning the conduct of Bro......
  • Talifero v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 2012
    ...from conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Simpson v. State, 265 Ga. 665, 665–666, 461 S.E.2d 210 (1995). Based on the evidence that Talifero drove and deliberately followed the men and pulled in behind their vehicle, intentiona......
  • 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