In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ju ly 5 , 2 0 1 6

S 1 6 A0 2 0 8 . RHODES v . THE S TATE.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t Da g Lu q u in c ie tte R h o de s wa s c o n v ic te d of m a lic e m u rd e r,

fe lo ny m u rd e r, a rm e d ro bb e ry

, a n d p o sse ssio n o f a f ire arm d u rin g th e

c o m m issio n o f a c rim e

, a lo ng with o th e r re la te d o ffe n se s, in c o n n e c tio n with th e

sh o o tin g d e a th s o f F re d e ric k a n d Yo ng -S uk Wa lk e r. 1 A p p e lla n t a p p e a ls fro m

1 The crimes occurred between F ebruary 2

, 1998, at 10:00 p.m. and F ebruary 3

, 1998, at 4:59

p.m. A Columbia County gr a n d j u ry returned a n indictment charg ing appellant and his cod e f endants J immie L ee Rhodes and David Easterling with malice murder (two c ounts), felony

m u r d er (two counts), armed robbery (two counts), burg lary

, p ossession o f a firearm d uring t h e

commission of c r imes (two counts), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On J uly 10,

2000, the State filed a notice of intention to seek imposition of the death penalty ag ainst appellant

a n d h e w a s t r i ed separately before a jury from F ebruary 23-26, 2004. On F ebruary 26, 2004,

appellant was found g uilty of all charg es. F ollowing the jury ’s determination not to impose the death

penalty

, the trial court sentenced appellan t on March 8, 2004, to two consecutive life sentences

without the possibility of parole for the malice murder of the victims, twenty y ears concurrent f or

each armed robbery count, twenty y ears concurrent for the burg lary count, five y ears consecutive f or

each count of possession of a firearm during the commission o f a f elony

, and five y e ars concurrent

fo r t h e p o s s e s sion of a firearm by a convicted felon. The felony murder counts thereafter were

vacated by operation of law. See Hulett v. State, 296 Ga. 49, 53 (2) (766 SE2d 1) (2014). Appellant

filed a motion for new trial on April 1, 2004, which he amended o n October 29, 2 009. F ollowing

a hearing

, the trial c o urt e n tered a n o r d e r o n D e cember 3, 2012 deny ing the motion for new trial.

Appellant filed a notice of a ppeal o n December 11, 2012 a nd the a ppeal was docketed in this Court

for the J anuary

2016 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.th e de n ia l o f h is m o tio n fo r ne w tria l a sse rtin g th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in fa ilin g

to fin d th a t th e S ta te with h e l d e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e fro m th e d e fe n se in

v io la tio n o f Bra d y v

. M a ry la n d

, 3 7 3 U.S

. 8 3 (8 3 SCt 1 1 94

, 10 LE2 d 2 1 5) (1 9 6 3 )

a n d Gig lio v

. Un ite d Sta t e s

, 4 0 5 U .S

. 1 5 0 (9 2 SCt 7 63

, 3 1 LE2 d 1 0 4 ) (1 9 7 2 ).

F in d in g n o e rro r, we a ffirm

.

1 . Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic t, th e e v id e n c e

sh o ws t h a t t h e p o lic e c o n d u c te d a we lfa re c h e c k a n d d isc o v e re d th e v ic tim s’

b o d ie s a t th e ir ho m e in Ev a n s, G e o r g i a o n Fe b ru a ry 3

, 1 9 9 8

, a fte r th e c o u p le

fa ile d to o p e n th e ir liq u o r sto re a n d c h e c k c a sh in g bu sin e ss. T h e n ig h t b e fo re

th e b o die s we re d isc o v e re d

, a p p e lla n t a nd h is c o -d e fe n d a n ts Jim m ie Le e Rh o de s

(“ J i mm ie L e e ” ) a

n d D a v id Ea ste rlin g (“ Ea ste rlin g ” ) d ro v e to an a re a n e a r th e

v ic tim s’ h o u s e

. Wh ile E a ste rlin g wa ite d in th e c a r, a p pe lla n t a n d Jim m ie Le e

b ro k e in to th e v ic tim s’ h o u se a n d d e m a n d e d m o n e y fro m th e c ou p le

, wh o we re

in b e d

. Afte r sh oo tin g Mrs. W a lk e r, th e m e n we re a b le to o b ta in m o n e y fro m

Mr. Wa lk e r b e fo re sh o o tin g h im

, to o

. Th e re a fte r, a p p e lla n t a n d Jim m ie Le e le ft

th e h ou se with th e m o n e y a nd we re p ic k e d u p b y E a ste rlin g

. In Ju n e 2 0 0 0

,

a p p e lla n t, Jim m ie Le e a n d Ea ste rlin g we re jo in t ly in d ic te d b y a Co lu m b ia

Co u n ty g ra nd ju r y a n d c h a rg e d with m u ltip le c rim e s re la te d to th e in c id e n t.

2S h o rtly th e re a fte r, th e Sta te file d n o tic e s o f in te n t to se e k th e de a th p e n a lty

a g a in st a ll th re e m e n

.

P rio r to a p p e lla nt’s tria l, Jim m ie Le e w a s trie d a nd c o n vic te d o n a ll c o u n ts

a n d wa s se n te nc e d to two life se n te n c e s with o u t p aro le

, wh ile E a ste rlin g e n te re d

g u ilty p le a s to two c o u n ts o f m u rd e r a n d re c e i v e d two life se nte n c e s. 2

Ea ste rlin g

, ha vin g a lre a d y b e e n se n te n c e d p u rsu a n t to h is g u ilty p le a s, te stifie d

f o r t h e S ta te a t a

p p e lla nt’s tria l c la im in g

, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t a fte r th e

m u rd e rs a p p e lla n t to ld h im th a t “ it g o t u g ly ” a n d “th e y [a p p e lla n t a n d Jim m ie

Le e ] h a d to we t [th e v ic tim s] .” 3 Also te stify in g fo r th e S ta te wa s Ru sse ll S h arp e

(“ S h a rp e ” ), a p riso n in m a te wh o m e t a pp e lla n t wh e n b o th m e n we re a ssig n e d to

wo rk in th e p riso n b a rb e rsh o p d u rin g a pp e lla n t’s p re -tria l in c a rc e ra tio n

.

S h a rp e te stifie d th a t a

p p e lla nt a p p ro a c h e d h im se e k in g le g a l in fo rm a tio n

a n d h e lp with th is c a se

. Afte r a p p e lla n t p ro v id e d h im with de ta ils a b o u t th e

m u rd e rs, h o we v e r, S h a rp e se n t a l et te r to th e Co lu m b ia C o u n ty Distric t

Atto rn e y ’s o ffic e se e k in g a d e a l fo r h im se lf. Ac c o rd in g to S h a rp e ’s te stim o n y

,

2 Easterling additionally pled g uilty to another unrelated murder for which he received a third

life sentence.

3 According

to Easterling ’ s trial testimony , “to wet” is street slang for “to shoot.”

3a

p p e lla n t t o l d h im th a t th e m o tiv e fo r th e c rim e s wa s to ge t m o n e y to re p a y a

d ru g de b t; th a t a

pp e lla n t a n d Jim m ie Le e c a se d th e v ic tim s’ h ou se p rio r to th e

c rim e s; th a t Mrs. Wa lk e r wa s sh o t first by a p pe lla n t, wh ile h e r h u sb a nd wa s sh o t

sh o rtly th e re a fte r b y Jim m ie Le e ; th a t Ea ste rlin g p ic k e d th e m u p a fte r th e y le ft

t h e c rim e sc e n e ; a n d th a t, a lth o ug h Jim m ie Le e wa n te d to k ill Ea ste rlin g

, to o

,

a p p e lla n t ta lk e d h im o u t o f it. Alth o ug h a d m ittin g th a t p rio r to m e e tin g

a p p e lla n t h e ha d b e e n im

p riso n e d in a c e ll n e x t to Jim m ie Le e a t a d iffe re n t

p riso n

, Sh a rp e de n ie d le a rn in g d e ta ils a

b o u t th e c rim e s fro m a n y on e o th e r th a n

a p p e lla n t.

We c o n c lu d e th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se wa s su ffic ie n t to e n a b le a ra tio n a l

trie r o f fa c t to fin d a

p p e lla n t g u ilty b e y o n d a re a so n a ble d o u b t o f th e c rim e s fo r

wh ic h h e wa s c o n v ic te d. S e e Ja c k so n v

. Virg in ia

, 4 43 U.S

. 3 0 7 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

,

6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 97 9).

2

. Ap p e lla nt c o n te n d s th a t t h e S ta te fa ile d to d isc lo se to th e d e fe nse

e v id e n c e o f de a ls m a d e b e twe e n th e S ta te a n d its two k e y w itn e sse s, Ea ste rlin g

a n d S h a rp e

, in e x c h a n g e fo r th e ir te stim o ny

. Alth o u g h a c k n owle dg in g th a t

e v id e n c e o f th e S t a t e ’ s d e a l s with th e se witn e sse s wa s re v e a le d a t tria l b y th e

witn e sse s, th e m s e l v e s

, a

p p e lla n t c om

p la in s th a t th e te rm s a n d e x te nt o f th e

4S ta te ’s de a l m a k in g wa s n o t d isc lo se d to a p p e lla nt a n d a sse rts th a t th is fa ilu re

c o n stitu te d a v io la tio n of h is du e p ro c e ss rig h ts u n d e r B ra d y

, 3 73 U.S

. a t 8 7 a n d

Gig lio , 4 0 5 U.S . a t 1 5 0

.

It is we ll-se ttle d th a t th e S ta te “ h a s a d uty to re v e a l to th e d e fe n se a n y

a g re e m e n t wi th a witn e ss c o n c e rn in g c rim in a l c h a rg e s p e n din g a g a in st th a t

witn e ss, a n d th e fa ilu re to d isc lo se su c h a n a g re e m e n t c on stitu te s a v io la tio n o f

th e a c c u se d ’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts u n d e r B ra d y .” Bra n n o n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 8 Ga

. 6 0 1

,

6 0 5 (7 8 3 S E2 d 6 4 2 ) (2 0 1 6 ). Se e Gig lio

, 4 0 5 U .S

. a t 1 5 4 ; Yo un ge r v. S ta te

, 2 8 8

Ga

. 1 9 5, 2 0 0 (7 0 2 SE2 d 1 8 3 ) (2 0 1 0 ). He re

, h o w e v er

, n e ith e r Ea ste rlin g n o r

S h a rp e h a d c h a rg e s p e n d in g a g a in st th e m a t th e tim e th e y p ro v id e d t e s t i mo n y

a t a p p e lla n t ’ s t r i a l. Mo re o v e r, th e te rm s o f b o th witn e sse s’ p rio r p le a

a g re e m e n ts with th e S ta te we re c o n ta in e d in p u b lic re c o rd s a n d re a d ily a v a ilab le

to a p p e lla n t p rio r to h is tria l. Alth o u gh a p p e lla n t a sse rts th e re m a y h a v e b e e n

in fo rm a l d e a ls b e twe e n th e S ta te an d t h e s e witn e sse s wh ic h we re un kn o wn to

h im a n d n o t p re se nte d a t tria l, a p p e lla n t ha s fa ile d to p ro v e th e e x iste n c e o f a n y

su c h d e a ls a n d m e re sp e c ula tio n th a t i n f o r ma l d e a ls e x iste d is in su ffic ie n t to

su b sta n tia te a

p p e lla n t ’s c la im th a t th e S ta te with h e ld e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e

5wh ic h p re

ju d ic e d h is d e fe nse

. 4 S e e Bra n n o n , 2 9 8 Ga . a t 6 0 5

.

F u rth e r, in o rd e r to e sta b lish re v e rsib le e rro r b a se d on th e p ro se c u tio n ’s

fa ilu re to d isc lo se su c h a n a g re e m e n t be twe e n th e S ta te a n d a te stify in g w itn e ss,

a d e fe nd a n t m

u st sh o w th a t a re a so n a

b le p ro b a b ility e x ists th a t th e re su lt o f h is

tria l wo u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t h a d e v id e n c e o f th e a g re e m e nt b e e n d isc lo se d

.

S e e Bra n n o n

, 2 9 8 Ga

. a t 6 0 5

. In th is c a se

, th e re c ord sh o ws th a t th e c re d ib ility

,

b i a s e s

, a n d m o tiv a tio n s o f bo th Ea ste rlin g a nd S h a rp e we re a tta c k e d a t le n g th

b y a p p e lla n t’s tria l c o u nse l o n c ro ss-e x a m in a t io n a n d in c lo sin g a rg u m e n t.

Ap p e lla n t’s c o u n se l e lic ite d m u ltip le a d m issio ns fro m Ea ste rlin g d u rin g c ro sse x a m in a tio n

, in c lu d in g th a t h e p le d g u ilty to th e m u rd e rs in th is c a se to a v o id

th e d e a th p e n a lty a n d p le d g u ilty to m u rd e r in a d iffe re n t c a se o n ly a fte r fa lse ly

im p lic a tin g a no th e r m a n

. W i t h re sp e c t to S h a rp e

, tria l c o u n se l e x tra c te d

a d m issio n s fro m th e witn e ss th a t h e wa s in p riso n fo r v o lu n t a ry m a nsla u g h te r

a fte r ha v in g h is m

u rd e r c h a r g e r e d u c e d in e x c h a n g e fo r a ssistin g in th e

4 A lthoug h Easterling ’ s attorney testified at the motion for n ew trial hearing that he believed

deals were made outside his presence, he admitted he was never clear on ex actly what was said to

his client or even whether an inducement to plea of w hich h e w a s u n aw are was even made.

Easterling ’s attorney ag r e e d, however, that Easterling had already received all the cons i d e r a tion

offered him at the time he took the stand and testified at appellant’s trial. W ith respect to Sharpe,

the record clearly shows appellant had knowledg e that Sharpe intended to testify ag ainst him in order

to procure the District Attorney ’s help in obtaining f a vorable treatment from the parole board.

6p ro se c u tio n o f a no th e r m a n

, th a t h e c o m m u n ic a te d with th e p ro se c utio n in th is

c a se

, a n d th a t h e e x p e c te d th e Distric t Atto rn e y to write a le tte r o n his b e h a lf to

th e pa ro le b o a rd

. Ba se d o n th is e v id e n c e

, a p p e lla n t’s tria l c o u n se l a rg u e d to th e

ju ry in c lo sin g th a t Ea ste rlin g ’s te stim o n y w a s m o tiv a te d b y h is d e sire to a v o id

th e d e a th p e na lty a n d re c e iv e fa v o ra b le tre a tme n t d u r i n g his te n u re in a

c o rre c tio n a l fa c ility

, wh ile S h a rp e ’s p rim ary m otiv a tio n wa s to o bta in fa v o ra b le

tre a tm e nt a n d h is re le a se fro m p riso n

.

Un d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s, we fin d a p p e lla n t h a s fa ile d to sh o w a g re e m e n ts

e x iste d be twe e n th e S ta te a n d Ea ste rlin g o r S h a rp e c o n c e rn in g p e n d in g c h a rg e s

a g a in st th e m o f wh ic h th e d e fe n se wa s u n a wa re

, a n d c o n c lu d e

, in a n y e v e n t, th a t

a p p e lla n t c a n n o t sh o w a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility e x ists th a t th e re su lt o f h is tria l

wo u ld ha v e b e e n diffe re n t ha d a n y a d d itio na l im

p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e of th is k in d

re g a rd in g th e se witn e sse s b e e n d isc lo se d to h im

.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

7