Williams v. State, No. S05A1041.

• Decision Date: 11 October 2005
• Docket Number: No. S05A1041.
• Citation: 279 Ga. 731,620 S.E.2d 816
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

279 Ga. 731

620 S.E.2d 816

WILLIAMS v. The STATE.

No. S05A1041.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

October 11, 2005.

Donald F. Samuel, William Charles Lea, Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C., Atlanta, for Appellant.

Howard Zachary Simms, Dist. Atty., Lewis M. Groover, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Hon. Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., John Thomas Durden, Jr., Dist. Atty., Chad Eric Jacobs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Calvin Williams was found guilty of the malice murders of Ponda Davis, Lisa Bymon, and Bymon's two children. He was sentenced to four consecutive terms of life in prison without parole.¹ He appeals, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm his convictions.

1. The evidence at trial authorized the jury to find that appellant, a married Ludowici police officer, had an affair with Bymon. Just prior to the murders, Bymon ended the relationship. Witnesses testified that appellant had made prior threats against Bymon, that he was very jealous and obsessive about their relationship, and that he had been stalking Bymon. On the night of the murders, a neighbor heard screaming from Davis's residence and observed someone running from the home. The next day, police officers discovered four dead bodies in the rear bedroom of the home. Twenty-eight year old Davis had been stabbed forty-two times; twenty-six year old Lisa Bymon had been shot in the head through the ear and her throat had been cut; and Bymon's two children, Desiree, age 7, and Juwan, age 6, had been stabbed multiple times.

A blood trail found in the residence led investigators to conclude that the perpetrator had a pre-existing leg or foot injury. While interviewing appellant, investigators observed fresh bruises and cuts on appellant's hand for which he had no plausible explanation and confirmed that appellant had recently injured his right ankle and was wearing a "walking boot." They also learned that he no longer had possession of his service revolver, which was the same caliber weapon used to kill Bymon. Expert testimony revealed the presence of appellant's blood at several locations within the crime scene, including the bedroom where the victims' bodies were found, despite appellant's assertion that he had never been in the Davis residence. A bloody shoe print matching the shoe prints at the scene of the crime was found in appellant's garage.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in qualifying Thomas Cribbs, a major with the Hinesville Police Department, as an expert in the area of blood pattern analysis. "To qualify as an expert . . . generally all that is required is that a person must have been educated in a particular skill or profession; his special knowledge may be derived from experience as well as study. [Cits.] Formal education in the subject at hand is not a prerequisite for expert status." Bowden v. State, 239 Ga. 821, 826(3), 238 S.E.2d 905 (1977). The trial court has broad discretion in accepting or rejecting the qualifications of the expert, and its judgment will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Brown v. State, 245 Ga. 588, 589, 266 S.E.2d 198 (1980).

The State presented evidence that Major Cribbs had been in law enforcement for over 33 years. He had received FBI and GBI training in investigation and crime scene evaluation, had attended numerous courses in crime scene reconstruction, including instruction on blood pattern analysis and characteristics of blood patterns, and over the course of his career had investigated hundreds of bloody crime scenes. At the time of trial, Cribbs was in charge of the investigation division of the Hinesville Police Department, where he was involved in crime scene investigations and personally oversaw the work of seven other investigators. From this evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that Cribbs was a qualified expert in the area of blood pattern analysis.

3. Appellant's claim that the trial court erred in admitting the similar transaction testimony of Teresa Coleman is waived because appellant failed to object to the testimony at the time it was introduced at trial. Smith v. State, 268 Ga. 42(3), 485 S.E.2d 189 (1997). We additionally note that the trial court did not err in admitting this evidence. The trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3(B) at which Coleman testified that approximately three years before the murders she had had an extramarital affair with appellant and when she attempted to end the relationship appellant became obsessive and abusive. Coleman's testimony was properly offered to show intent, motive and bent of mind. See Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640(2)(b), 409 S.E.2d 649 (1991).

4. Nor did the trial court err by failing to give a more narrowly-tailored similar transaction charge where such an instruction was not requested. See Sedlak v. State, 275 Ga. 746(2)(e), 571 S.E.2d 721 (2002); State v. Belt, 269 Ga. 763, 505 S.E.2d 1 (1998). Moreover, our review of the record indicates that both after the admission of the similar transaction evidence and in its final charge to the jury the trial court gave complete and accurate instructions on the use of similar transaction evidence and on the limited purposes for which such evidence could be used. Contrary to appellant's argument, the State was not required to identify a single purpose for which the evidence was offered but correctly offered it for the multiple purposes of proving motive, bent of mind and intent.

5. The trial court admitted the testimony of several witnesses concerning prior difficulties between Bymon and appellant under the necessity exception to the rule excluding hearsay. OCGA § 24-3-1(b). For hearsay to be admitted under the necessity exception, it must be established that the testimony is necessary and that it has particular guarantees of trustworthiness. Chapel v. State, 270 Ga. 151(4), 510 S.E.2d 802 (1998). Appellant contends that the testimony of three of these witnesses, Naomi Henderson, Lamarkus Adams, and Officer James Snider, lacked the indicia of reliability required to satisfy the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness prong. As discussed below, we find no reversible error in the admission of this testimony.

(a) Naomi Henderson was Bymon's co-worker and friend. She had known Bymon for a year and a half and the two women regularly confided in each other about personal matters. Henderson testified that on the night of the murders Bymon told her she had broken up with appellant and that she was going to Davis's house to cook dinner. Similarly, Lamarkus Adams was a close friend of Bymon who visited with her almost every day in the year preceding Bymon's death. Adams testified that he and Bymon regularly discussed personal problems and gave each other advice. He also testified that two days before her death, Bymon stated she had told appellant to "get lost" and that appellant responded that it was not going to be that easy to get rid of him. Bymon's statements to both Henderson and Adams were uncontradicted statements made to individuals whom she had known for over a year, in whom she placed great confidence and to whom she regularly turned for advice with her personal problems and to discuss personal matters. Accordingly, the trial court was authorized to find that Bymon's statements to these witnesses contained particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. See Watson v. State, 278 Ga. 763(2)(a), 604 S.E.2d 804 (2004); Ward v. State, 271 Ga. 648(2), 520 S.E.2d 205 (1999).

(b) Officer Snider met Bymon approximately a...