Young v. State
| Decision Date | 10 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | S20A0859 |
| Citation | 309 Ga. 529,847 S.E.2d 347 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
David Edward Clark, Clark & Towne, P.C., 1755 North brown Road Suite 200, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043, for Appellant.
Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Paula Khristian Smith, Christopher M. Carr, Matthew David O'Brien, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Daniel J. Porter, Samuel Richard d'Entremont, Gwinnett County District Attorney's Office, 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30046, for Appellee.
Jermaine Young was convicted of malice murder in connection with the shooting death of Shane Varnadore.1 Young now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying Young's motion to suppress his statements made during police interviews, that the trial court erred in admitting a Facebook photo into evidence at trial, and that Young's trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm Young's convictions.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdicts, the evidence presented at trial showed the following. On March 1, 2016, Varnadore, who was working the closing shift at Papa John's, responded to a call to deliver two pizzas, two dessert pizzas, and a two-liter bottle of Pepsi to "Josh" in Unit 10108 at the Wesley Herrington Apartment Complex. The phone number used to place the order—later discovered to be associated with a TracFone—had called Papa John's three times that evening: once to inquire about pizza specials, once to place an order, and once to check on the status of the delivery. While Varnadore was delivering the order at approximately 11:30 p.m., he was shot in the chest at the apartment complex. Police responded to the scene and discovered Varnadore lying in a parking space in front of the apartment complex's 10000 building, where Unit 10108 is located. Police also found a spent .40-caliber shell casing two parking spots away from Varnadore's body and an empty Papa John's insulated pizza-delivery bag and a two-liter bottle of Pepsi on the ground outside of Unit 10108.
After responding to the scene, detectives obtained the phone number used to call Papa John's. Through database searches, they linked Malek Buckley to the TracFone and discovered that Buckley lived in Unit 9301 of the Wesley Herrington Apartment Complex. And through Facebook, detectives learned that Buckley was friends with Young and uncovered Young's phone number. Phone records revealed that Varnadore had called the TracFone at 11:27 p.m., and that the TracFone then called Young's phone number at 11:34 p.m.
Police obtained a search warrant for Unit 9301, and on March 2, 2016, police executed the search warrant with assistance from SWAT. All five of the unit's residents—Reginald Lofton, Buckley (Lofton's half-brother), Porsha Porter (Lofton's older half-sister), Ciara Harris (Porter's girlfriend), and Young—were present when SWAT arrived. They all exited the apartment and were transported to police headquarters to be interviewed. During the search of Unit 9301, police found the TracFone associated with the number that called Papa John's; pizza boxes delivered by Varnadore, as evidenced by the phone number and address on the receipts that were on the boxes; and what was later identified by a firearms examiner as the murder weapon hidden inside a box of pancake mix.
At trial, the medical examiner testified that Varnadore died from a gunshot wound
to the torso. Porter testified that on the night of the incident, Lofton discussed ordering a pizza; later that night while she was in bed, Porter heard a gunshot. When she entered the living room shortly after, she saw Young on the couch, "[l]eaning sideways, like he was like out of breath." Then, she "stepped outside" of the apartment and saw Lofton "com[e] up the stairs with his headphones on" and "walk[ ] in [to the apartment] with the pizza" before she "locked the door and went back in [her] room and went back to sleep."
Harris "came [out of the bedroom] just a little bit after" Porter and testified that she saw pizza boxes "[s]tacked" "on top of the corner of the [kitchen] countertop" and that Lofton was in the kitchen and Young was on the couch when she walked out. She also testified that she was outside when she saw SWAT arrive at the apartment complex. After seeing SWAT, she "ran back inside" the apartment and "told everybody." Harris testified that the apartment turned into a "chaotic scene," with everyone "sh[a]ken up" and "moving fast" "all over the place." She saw Young grab a box of pancake mix and go into a room with it and saw Lofton put one of the pizza boxes under her bed.
Detective Matthew Kenck, the lead detective on the case, testified that during Buckley's police interview, Buckley stated that on the night of the shooting, "Young had woken him up, and then [Buckley] said that [Young] and [Lofton] had told him" "that they had hit a lick on the pizza man."2 Young's three video-recorded interviews with Detective Kenck were then played for the jury. In the interviews, Young explained that he was visiting from Chicago and had been living with Porter for months. He stated that he had tried to return to Chicago on March 1, but missed the bus, so he was planning on catching the bus to Chicago on March 2. During the interviews, Young eventually admitted that Lofton had made a plan to rob the pizza delivery person. Young also stated during the interviews that he had agreed to participate in the robbery and walked to the 10000 building with Lofton to assist him in the robbery but he claimed that he then abandoned the plan at the last minute, shortly before Varnadore was shot. Young explained that he ran back to Unit 9301 after Varnadore arrived at the apartment complex but before Varnadore was shot.
Young does not contest the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Nevertheless, consistent with this Court's general practice in murder cases, we have reviewed the record and conclude that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find Young guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted.3 See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318-319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; Lofton v. State , No. S20A0196, ––– Ga. ––––, ––––, 846 S.E.2d 57, 65–66 (Ga. July 1, 2020). See also OCGA § 16-2-20.
2. Young argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the statements he made during his police interviews. Specifically, Young argues that his statements should have been excluded because (a) Young never knowingly waived his rights under Miranda4 because he was misinformed about his "immediate right to a free lawyer" and because (b) detectives continued Young's interrogation after Young invoked his right to silence.
After the search warrant was executed on Unit 9301 on March 2, 2016, Young was handcuffed, taken to police headquarters to be interviewed by Detective Kenck and Detective Shannon Kulnis, and interviewed three times. At the outset of Young's first interview, the detectives informed Young that there were no outstanding warrants for his arrest, but that they were going to "read [him his] rights." Young interjected, asking whether he was "charged with anything," and the detectives told Young that he was not. The detectives then advised Young of his rights under Miranda . After Young indicated that he understood his rights, the following exchange occurred:
In that first interview, Young denied any involvement in the incident.
Approximately five hours later, Young was interviewed a second time, and he indicated that he still understood his rights under Miranda when asked by Detective Kenck.5 In that interview, Young stated that he had agreed to assist Lofton in robbing the pizza delivery person but claimed that he then changed his mind and walked away from the scene right before Varnadore was shot. At some point during the second interview, when explaining his role in the crimes, Young paused, looked at one of the detectives, and stated: The detectives explained that they thought it was "funny" because Lofton had given the detectives the same account of that evening's events during his interview, but with an important contradiction about who shot Varnadore: whereas Young told detectives that Lofton was going to pay for the pizza and Lofton was the one who shot the pizza delivery person, Lofton told detectives that he believed Young was going to pay for the pizza and that Young was the one who pulled the trigger. Detective Kulnis elaborated: "Dude, you have to understand that when we catch two people telling us some bulls***, but it's the same bulls***, it's kinda funny." Soon after, Young asked, "Is you gonna listen to my story, or are you gonna just tell me what you think you know?" After detectives stated that they would listen to Young's version of events, Young continued to speak with them.
Almost immediately after the detectives...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinkson v. State
...and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived." Young v. State , 309 Ga. 529, 534, 847 S.E.2d 347, 353 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). Moreover, "[a] statement by an interrogating agent that contradicts the Miranda......
-
Kelly v. State
...evidence to the contrary, counsel is presumed to have provided effective assistance during those proceedings. See Young v. State , 309 Ga. 529, 539, 847 S.E.2d 347 (2020) (explaining that there is a strong presumption that counsel's performance was adequate). But then Maxwell's counsel did ......
-
Oliver v. State, A22A0254
...the damaging evidence would have been suppressed had counsel made the motion." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Young v. State , 309 Ga. 529, 539 (4), 847 S.E.2d 347 (2020). Trial counsel testified that he did not file a motion to suppress because there was not grounds to do so. We agree......
-
Palmer v. State
...but is based on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life.(Citations and punctuation omitted). Young v. State , 309 Ga. 529, 540 (4), 847 S.E.2d 347 (2020).The trial court may then examine the issue as a first level of review, guided by the Fourth Amendment's strong preferen......