Tate v. The State

• Decision Date: 28 June 2010
• Docket Number: No. S10P0477.,S10P0477.
• Parties: TATEv.The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

287 Ga. 364

695 S.E.2d 591

TATEv.The STATE.

No. S10P0477.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 1, 2010.

Reconsideration Denied June 28, 2010.

Mitchell D. Durham, Marietta, Benjamin B. Reed, Canton, for appellant.

Fred A. Lane, Jr., Dist. Atty., Anthony Volkodav, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Lyndsey J. Hurst, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Brian Kammer, Georgia Resource Center, Atlanta, Richard A. Malone, Prosecuting Attorneys' Council, for the other party.

BENHAM, Justice.

Chrissie Williams and her three-year-old daughter, Katelyn Williams, were found dead in their home. Chrissie Williams was found bound to a bed with handcuffs and duct tape, and she had a bullet wound to her head. Katelyn Williams was found naked on the floor of another room, and her throat had been slit. Nicholas Cody Tate pleaded guilty to both murders and to related crimes, and he waived his right to a jury trial as to sentencing for the murders.¹ At the conclusion of a bench trial on sentencing, the trial court found the existence of multiple statutory aggravating circumstances and sentenced Tate to death for each of the murders. See OCGA § 17-10-30(b). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Tate's convictions and sentences.

Guilty Pleas

1. Tate argues that his guilty pleas to the two counts of kidnapping and the one count of child molestation were not supported by a showing of a sufficient factual basis and, therefore, that those pleas were taken in violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.9, which states as follows:

Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, judgment should not be entered upon such plea without such inquiry on the record as may satisfy the judge that there is a factual basis for the plea.

Tate also argues that the alleged lack of a showing of a factual basis for these contested pleas also renders those pleas unconstitutional. We reject Tate's arguments because, as we discuss below, we find no merit ² to Tate's assertion that there was a lack of a factual basis shown to the trial court in the plea hearing for these contested pleas.

(a) Tate argues that the factual basis for his guilty pleas to the two kidnapping counts was inadequate because the movement of the victims was not of a character that can satisfy the asportation element of the crime of kidnapping. The question of whether the factual basis for his plea correlated with the elements of the crime of kidnapping must be examined in light of the statutory definition of kidnapping that was in force at the time of Tate's crimes rather than the broader definition of kidnapping established by the recent amendment to the kidnapping statute by the General Assembly. See OCGA § 16-5-40 (defining kidnapping); Ga. L.2009, p. 88, § 1 (altering the definition of kidnapping); Dixon v. State, 300 Ga.App. 183, 184 n. 3, 684 S.E.2d 679 (2009) (“[B]ecause the amendment [to the kidnapping statute] applies to crimes committed on or after the revision's effective date of July 1, 2009, it is inapplicable here....”). This Court has created a four-part test for whether the movement of a victim satisfies the element of asportation within the meaning of the statutory definition of kidnapping that was in force at the time of Tate's crimes. Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696(1), 670 S.E.2d 73 (2008). The factors in that four-part test are the following:

(1) the duration of the movement; (2) whether the movement occurred during the commission of a separate offense; (3) whether such movement was an inherent part of that separate offense; and (4) whether the movement itself presented a significant danger to the victim independent of the danger posed by the separate offense.

Id. at 702(1) The factual basis shown to the trial court for Tate's guilty pleas, including Tate's videotaped interrogation,³ correlated sufficiently with the definition of kidnapping imposed by this four-part test. Although the movement of both victims spanned a relatively-short duration and occurred while most of the other offenses were ongoing or not yet committed, the movement “was not an inherent part” of any of the other offenses, and the movement “created an additional danger to the victims by enhancing the control of the [Tate brothers] over them.” Henderson v. State, 285 Ga. 240(5), 675 S.E.2d 28 (2009).

b. The strongest portion of the factual basis for Tate's guilty plea to child molestation ⁴ was his own statement in the plea hearing that he himself had undressed Katelyn Williams for the purpose of his sexual arousal. Tate argues that this statement by him at his plea hearing was contradicted by previous statements by himself and his co-defendants. However, the requirement that a factual basis be shown for a plea “is to protect against someone pleading guilty when that person may know what he has done but may not know that those acts do not constitute the crime with which he is charged.” State v. Evans, 265 Ga. 332(2), 454 S.E.2d 468 (1995). In assessing the factual basis for a plea, the trial court “need not make itself aware of evidence establishing the pleader's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....” King v. Hawkins, 266 Ga. 655, 656, 469 S.E.2d 30 (1996). Accordingly, we conclude that the factual basis for Tate's guilty plea to the one count of child molestation was adequate, despite the existence of several contradictory accounts of the crimes that had been given previously by Tate and his brothers.

Sentencing Trial

2. The trial court denied Tate's pre-trial motion to suppress his videotaped interrogation. Despite the fact that the videotape is marked in the record as an exhibit of the State, a review of the sentencing trial record reveals that the videotape was actually introduced by Tate during his cross-examination of a witness for the State. Accordingly, we conclude that Tate has waived the right to complain on appeal about the introduction of the videotape as evidence at his sentencing trial. See Anderson v. State, 286 Ga. 57(6), 685 S.E.2d 716 (2009).

3. As was discussed above, the actions that Tate participated in constituted kidnapping within the meaning of the kidnapping statute that was in force at the time of his crimes. See Henderson, 285 Ga. at (5), 675 S.E.2d 28. Accordingly, there is also no merit to his argument that the trial court erred by finding the existence of statutory aggravating circumstances based on the kidnappings of the two victims. See OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(2).

4. The evidence showed that Nicholas Tate directed Chad Tate, his 15-year-old brother, to silence Katelyn Williams, who was only three years old. Chad Tate emerged from the room where he had strangled the child with a telephone cord, likely with his hands showing obvious signs of what he had done. When the child regained consciousness and began screaming again, Nicholas Tate, who had initially sent Chad to silence the child, allowed Chad Tate to take his knife and to return to the room where the child was. The evidence also showed that Nicholas Tate had been intent upon eliminating potential witnesses and that Katelyn Williams had recognized him and had called him by name. Both Chad and Nicholas Tate's pants were shown to have been stained with Katelyn Williams's blood. The trial court, acting as the finder of fact, was authorized to find that Nicholas Tate directed his young brother to murder the child. As we have held, one “who directs a follower or lackey to commit murder” is guilty of the statutory aggravating circumstance addressing persons who cause or direct another to commit murder as an agent or employee. Mize v. State, 269 Ga. 646(14), 501 S.E.2d 219 (1998) (construing OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(6)). Accordingly, we find no merit to Tate's argument that the trial court erred by finding the existence of the statutory aggravating circumstance addressing one who has directed another to murder as his or her agent or employee. See OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(6).

5. Tate argues that the statutory aggravating circumstances concerning armed robbery in his case are invalid because, despite overwhelming evidence that he attempted to steal things from the victims' home, there was not evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he succeeded in actually stealing anything. We find no error, because a murder may be found to have been committed while the murderer was “engaged in the commission” of an armed robbery even if the attempted armed robbery fails or is otherwise abandoned. OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(2). See Amadeo v. State, 243 Ga. 627, 631, 255 S.E.2d 718 (1979) (construing OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(2)).

6. There is no merit to Tate's argument that the one armed robbery cannot serve as a statutory aggravating circumstance for both of the murders. See Isaacs v. State, 259 Ga. 717(43)(a), 386 S.E.2d 316 (1989).

7. Tate argues that this Court's rule against “mutually supporting aggravating circumstances” has been violated by the trial court's finding that Chrissie Williams was murdered during the commission of the murder of Katelyn Williams and that Katelyn Williams was murdered during the commission of the murder of Chrissie Williams. Even if, pursuant to this Court's rule against “mutually supporting aggravating circumstances,” we were to set aside one of the statutory aggravating circumstances in question, there would remain sufficient statutory aggravating circumstances to support both of the two death sentences in this case. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983); Lance v. State, 275 Ga. 11(25), 560 S.E.2d 663 (2002). Thus, pretermitting whether this Court's rule against “mutually supporting aggravating circumstances” is constitutionally or otherwise required, we conclude that Tate's death sentences are valid even assuming the continued validity of that rule.

8. Because it is clear that at least one valid statutory aggravating circumstance existed in Tate's case, the trial court, acting as the sentencing agent upon Tate's waiver of his right to a jury trial on...