Smart v. State

• Decision Date: 05 July 2016
• Docket Number: S16A0393
• Citation: 299 Ga. 414,788 S.E.2d 442
• Parties: Smart v. The State.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

299 Ga. 414

788 S.E.2d 442

Smart

v.The State.

S16A0393

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: July 5, 2016

Tanya F. Miller, Law Office of Tanya F. Miller, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3325, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Scott Orion Teague, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Margaret Ellen Heap, District Attorney, Jennifer Parker Guyer, A.D.A., Christine Sieger Barker, A.D.A., Office of the District Attorney Eastern Judicial Circuit, P.O. Box 2309, Savannah, Georgia 31402, Lyndsey Hurst Rudder, A.D.A., Office of the District Attorney Eastern Judicial Circuit, 133 Montgomery Street, Suite 600, Savannah, Georgia 31401, for Appellee.

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellant Norman Smart was convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with the beating death of his wife, Lauren Smart, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Appellant contends, inter alia, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erroneously admitted both character evidence and hearsay testimony. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.¹

Viewed in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the evidence at trial established as follows. On the evening of June 6, 2014, a deliveryman making a delivery at the marital residence observed Appellant and Lauren arguing and overheard Appellant state “this B's going to make me F her up.” The next morning, Appellant called 911 regarding his wife; officers responded to the marital home and discovered Lauren on the floor next to the couple's bed, obviously deceased. The marital residence showed no sign of forced entry. Appellant, a weightlifter and former professional fighter, reported to police that he had arrived home earlier that morning, at approximately 1:30 a.m., and discovered that his wife was intoxicated. According to Appellant, his wife had lain down on the floor and “passed out” from her alcohol consumption; Appellant told authorities that he covered his wife with a blanket and went to bed but that, when he awoke, he found her unresponsive. In a subsequent letter written from jail, however, Appellant reported that he and Lauren “went to sleep together” and that Lauren had “passed away in her sleep.”

A subsequent autopsy revealed that Lauren died from multiple blunt-force traumas and strangulation. Lauren suffered dozens of internal and external injuries, some caused with the force expected from a car crash or long fall. The medical examiner testified that, “visually,” there was a “very high degree of similarity” between injuries on Lauren's body and the sole of a shoe belonging to Appellant. Though Appellant had reported in the 911 call that he was performing CPR on his wife—and a recording of that call captured a rhythmic “squeaking” sound—the medical examiner found no evidence that CPR was performed on Lauren. Likewise, the rhythmic squeaking sounds captured on the 911 call likely came from the couple's mattress, but there was no indication that Lauren's body was on the mattress immediately before or after her death.

Brian Patterson, who worked for Appellant, testified that he repaired a door and door frame in the marital residence that had been “severely damaged” and that, on the night he performed the repairs, Lauren wore sunglasses the entire time. Watson Lee, who was with Patterson that night, testified that he saw Lauren remove her sunglasses and that she had two black eyes. The jury also heard text messages sent by Appellant in which he stated that he was “really going to rattle [Luaren's] brain” and that he was going to “smash her.” Finally, the jury heard testimony that, Lauren's son, Brayden, heard Appellant beating his mother and heard her screaming during the fatal assault.

1. The evidence as summarized above was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Though Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to present substantial credible and direct evidence to sustain the conviction for murder, it is axiomatic that resolving evidentiary conflicts and assessing witness credibility are within the exclusive province of the jury. See Hampton v. State , 272 Ga. 284, 527 S.E.2d 872 (2000).

2. The trial court permitted the State to present the testimony of Katie Tucker, the sister of Appellant's ex-wife, Sarah, regarding prior acts of domestic violence committed by Appellant. Tucker testified that Appellant would threaten Sarah daily, would hit Sarah in such a way so as to leave no visible injury, and that Appellant's “motto” was that “his love is pain.” According to Tucker, Appellant would ask Sarah “how many”—referencing punches—and if Sarah said “one,” Appellant would punch her twice. Tucker explained that Sarah did not like having her kneecaps touched but that Appellant would often punch her there. Tucker also described an incident in which Sarah, then eight-months pregnant, suspected that Appellant was with another woman in the marital residence. Appellant prevented Sarah from entering the residence and, when Sarah attempted to climb through a broken window, Appellant shoved her out of the window to the ground. Tucker explained that, when the injured and bloody Sarah managed to enter the house, she was forcefully dragged out of the house by Appellant. Appellant now argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this testimony.² We disagree.

Because Appellant was tried after January 1, 2013, we utilize Georgia's new Evidence Code to evaluate this claim. Under the new code,

[e]vidence 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.

OCGA § 24–4–404 (b) (“Rule 404 (b)”). Evidence offered for a proper purpose under this rule may be excluded under OCGA § 24–4–403 (“Rule 403”) “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” These rules track their federal counterparts, and this Court has adopted the three-part test used by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to evaluate the admissibility of other acts evidence. Bradshaw v. State , 296 Ga. 650, 769 S.E.2d 892 (2015) (adopting the three-part test). The three-part test to utilized by the Eleventh Circuit to determine the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404 (b) is as follows:

(1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than defendant's character; (2) the probative value must not be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice; (3) the government must offer sufficient proof so that the jury could find that defendant committed the act.

United States v. Ellisor , 522 F.3d 1255, 1267 (11th Cir.2008). See also State v. Jones , 297 Ga. 156, 773 S.E.2d 170 (2015). Here, the trial court ruled that the testimony was admissible for the purposes of showing defendant's motive to control family members with violence and his intent to harm his intimate partners, as well as to show the absence of mistake or accident. We review this decision for clear abuse of discretion. Bradshaw , 296 Ga. at 656, 769 S.E.2d 892.

(a) Rule 404 (b) prohibits other acts evidence from being admitted for the sole purpose of proving the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith, see Jones , 297 Ga. at 159, 773 S.E.2d 170 ; however, other acts evidence may be admitted under Rule 404 (b) if that evidence is relevant to some issue other than character. See Olds v. State , 299 Ga. 65, 70–72 (2), 786 S.E.2d 633 (2016). To evaluate relevancy, this Court relies on OCGA § 24–4–401, which defines “relevant evidence” as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” See also Jones , 297 Ga. at 159, 773 S.E.2d 170. The trial court concluded that the evidence was relevant to show, inter alia, motive. “Motive has been defined as ‘the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge the criminal intent.’ ” (Citation omitted.) United States v. Benton , 637 F.2d 1052, 1056 (2) (5th Cir. 1981).

While motive is not an element of any of the charged offenses here, Tucker's testimony was relevant to help the jury understand why Appellant might have used violence against Lauren. Though Tucker's testimony referenced specific acts of domestic violence, her testimony also revealed the impetus behind that violence: control. Sarah would ask for one punch, but would get two; Appellant would hit Sarah where she was most sensitive and in a way that would not reveal that violence; and Appellant forcibly removed Sarah from the marital residence when he did not want her there. Accordingly, Tucker's testimony was relevant to the State addressing motive, namely, that Appellant used violence to control Lauren.³ Cf. United States v. Banks , 514 F.3d 959, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that evidence of the defendant's prior stabbing of someone who insulted his gang status was admissible to prove motive under Rule 404(b) in his trial for attempted murder of someone else who also insulted his gang status).

(b) The mere fact that the evidence was relevant to an issue other than Appellant's character does not end our analysis. We now must...