THI RD DI VI SI ON

ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, DI LLA RD and M C FA DDEN, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s /

Jul y 7, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A0 54 4 . W ILLIAM S v . THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , J u d g e.

Aft er a ju ry t ri al

, Dem arq u es Lee W il l iam s was co n v i ct ed o f ag g rav at ed

as s au l t an d ag g rav at ed bat t ery

. In t h i s ap p eal

, h e arg ues t hat t h e t ri al co u rt s h o u ld

h av e m erg ed t h e co n vi ct i o n s fo r s en t en ci n g b ecau s e t h ey aro s e fro m t h e s am e co u rs e

o f c o n d u ct

. W e fi n d t h at t he t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err in d ecl in i n g to m erg e t h e

co n vi ct i o n s b ecau s e th e ag g rav at ed as s au lt was a s ep arat e act fro m t h e en s u i n g act

o f ag g rav at ed bat t ery

. W i l l i am s al s o ch al l en g es th e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce, b ut

we fi n d t h at t h e ev i d en ce s u pp ort s t h e co n v ict i o n s . W e t h erefo re affi rm

.

1

. Fa ct s

.

W h en a d efen d an t ch al l en g es t h e s uffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce s u p p o rt i n g h i s

cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n , “ t h e rel ev an t q u es ti o n i s wh et h er, aft er v i ewi ng t h e ev i d en ce int h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e p ro s ecu t io n , a n y rat i o n al tri er o f fact co u l d h av e fo u n d

t h e es s en t i al el em en t s o f t h e cri m e b ey o n d a reas on ab l e d o u b t .” Ja cks on v. Vi r g i n i a ,

4 4 3 U. S. 3 0 7

, 3 1 9 (III) (B) (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) ( 1 9 7 9 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ;

em ph as i s i n ori g i n al ). It i s t h e fu n ct i o n o f th e ju ry , n o t t he rev i ewi n g co urt

, t o res o l v e

co n fl i ct s i n t he t es t i m o n y , t o w ei g h t h e ev id en ce, an d t o d raw reas on ab le i n feren ces

fro m t he ev i den ce. I d

. “ A s l o n g as t h ere i s so m e co m p et en t ev i d en ce, ev en t h o u g h

co n trad i ct ed

, t o s u p p ort each fact n eces s ary t o m ak e o u t t h e [s ] t at e’ s cas e, t h e ju ry ’ s

v erd i ct w i l l b e u p h el d

. ” Mi l l er v. S ta t e , 2 7 3 Ga. 8 3 1

, 83 2 (5 4 6 SE2 d 5 2 4) (2 0 0 1 )

(ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Vi ewed i n t h i s l i g ht

, t h e ev i d en ce s h owed t h at th e v i ct im was i nv i t ed t o a

Ch ri s t m as p art y at an ap art m en t co m p l e x i n C l ay t o n Co un t y

. W h en h e g o t t h ere,

W i ll i am s as k ed hi m t o p l ay d i ce. Th ey b eg an pl ay i n g at t h e b ack o f t h e v ict i m ’ s v an

.

Th e v i ct i m wo n al l o f W i l l i am s ’ m o n ey

. W i ll i am s l e f t a n d t h e v ict i m co n t i n u ed

p l ay i n g wi t h an o t h er p ers on

. W i l l i am s cam e b ack wi t h an o t h er $ 3 0 o r $ 4 0

, an d l o s t

t h at

, to o , an d l eft ag ai n

. W i l li am s ret u rn ed ag ai n , a ppr oa ch i n g t h e v i ct i m fro m b eh i n d.

He s ai d s om et h i ng an d t h e v i ct im t u rn ed to s ee t h at W i ll i am s h ad a g u n p o i n t ed t o h i s

h ead

. Th e v i ct i m p u s hed W il l i am s ’ h an d away

. W i l l i am s cam e b ack s w i n g in g an d h i t

2t h e v i ct i m w i t h t h e p i s t o l

. Th e v i ct i m g rab b ed W i ll i a m s a n d t h ey t us s l ed

. W i l l i am s

t h en s h o t t h e v ict i m , s ev eri n g h i s s p i n e. T h e v ict i m i s n o w co n fi n ed t o a wh eel ch ai r.

W i l l i am s t es t i fi ed at t ri al t h at h e an d t h e v ict i m b eg an fi g h t i n g wh en t h e v i ct i m

i n s u l t ed h i s co us i n. W il l iam s t es t i fi ed t hat h e s ho t t h e v ict i m w h en h e s aw t h e v i ct i m

reach i n g fo r h is weap o n

.

W i l l i am s arg u es t h at th e ev i d en ce i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt t h e ag g rav at ed

as s au l t co n v i ct i o n b ecau s e i t s h o ws t h at t h e v i ct i m was n o t afrai d

. OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2

(b ) (2 ) p ro v i des

, “ A p ers o n co m m i t s t h e o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t wh en h e o r s h e

as s au l t s

. . . [w] i t h a d ead l y weap o n o r wi t h an y ob ject

, d ev i ce, o r i n s t ru m en t wh i ch

,

wh en u sed o ffen s i v el y ag ai n s t a p ers o n , is l i k el y to o r act u al l y d o es res u l t i n s eri ou s

b o d i l y i n ju ry .” Co n t rary t o W i ll i am s ’ arg u m en t

, th e s t at u te d o es n o t req u i re “ t h at t h e

v i ct i m h av e a reas o n ab le fear of i m m ed i at el y recei v i n g a v i o l en t i nju ry b u t rat h er t h at

t h e v i ct i m h av e a reas o n ab l e p ercep t i o n t h at h e i s ab o u t t o recei ve a v i o l en t i n ju ry .”

Mo o r e v. S t a t e , 2 86 Ga. A p p. 3 1 3

, 31 6 (1 ) (6 4 9 SE2 d 33 7 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

“ Reas o n ab l e ap p reh en si o n of in ju ry i s n ot t he s am e as s i m p l e fear, an d t h e fact t h at

t h e vi ct im d o es n o t n eces s a r i l y ex p eri en ce fear d o es n o t p recl u d e a fi n d i n g o f

reas on ab l e ap p reh en s i o n .” H o wa r d v. S t a t e , 2 8 8 G a. 7 41

, 7 4 2 (2 ) (7 0 7 SE2 d 8 0 )

(2 0 1 1) (ci t at i o n s an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

3W i l l i a m s fu rt h er arg u es t h at bo t h co n v i ct io n s m u s t be rev ers ed b ecau s e h e

act ed i n s el f-d efen s e. “ Bu t th e q u es t i o n o f wh et h er [W i l li am s ] act ed i n s el f-d efen s e

was s o l el y fo r th e ju ry , wh i ch ob v i o u sl y res o l v ed t h e i s s u e ag ai n s t [h i m ]

. [W i l l i am s ]

i n e ffect as k s u s t o rewei g h t h e ev id en ce t o p l ace g reat er cred en ce i n [h i s ]

ju s t ifi cat i o n d efen s e th an d i d t h e ju ry , b u t th i s co u rt d oes n o t wei g h t he ev i d en ce o r

as s es s t h e cred i b i l i t y o f wi t n es s es .” Ca r t er v. S t a t e , 3 0 3 G a. Ap p

. 1 42

, 14 4 (1 ) (6 9 2

SE2 d 7 5 3) (2 0 1 0) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

W e co n cl u d e th at t h e ev i d en ce ad d u ced at t ri al was s u ffi ci en t t o au t h o ri ze a

rat i o nal t ri er o f fact t o fi n d b ey on d a reas on ab l e d o u b t t h at W i l l i am s was g u i lt y o f t h e

cri m es o f wh i ch h e was co n v i ct ed

. Ja cks o n , s u p ra, 4 4 3 U. S. at 3 1 9 (III) (B).

2

. Mer g er

.

W i l l i am s arg ues t hat t he t wo cri m es m erg ed becau s e t h ey aro s e fro m t h e s am e

co u rs e o f co n d u ct . W e d i s ag ree.

Aft er W il l i am s in it i al l y p o i n t ed t h e g u n at t h e vi ct i m ’ s h ead

, t h e v ict i m p u s h ed

W i ll i am s ’ h an d away

. W i l l i am s cam e b ack swi ng i ng a n d h i t t h e v i ct i m wi t h t h e

p i s t o l

. Th e v i ct i m g rab b ed W i ll i am s an d t h ey t u s s l ed

. On l y t h en d i d W i l l i am s s h o ot

t h e v ict i m

. W i l l i am s’ ag grav at ed as s au l t cau s ed t h e v i ct im “ t o m o v e d efen s i vel y , an d

[W il l i am s ] t h en t o o k a s ep arat e act i o n of m o vi n g t o w ard [t h e v i ct i m ]

, wh i ch l ed to

4t h e s t ru g g l e t h at res u l t ed i n [t h e v ict i m ] g e t t i n g s h ot i n [t h e s p i n e]

. It fo l lo ws t h at

[W il l i am s ’ ] i n i ti al act o f p o i n t i n g t h e g u n at [t h e v i ct i m ’ s h ead ]

, an ag g rav at ed

as s au l t

, was a s ep arat e act fro m t h e en s u i n g act [] o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

. Acco rd i n g l y ,

t h e cri m es d o n o t m e r g e

. ” Th o ma s v. S t a t e , 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 6 8 2

, 6 8 4 (2 ) (7 5 4 SE2 d

6 6 1 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (ci t at i o n s an d fo ot n o t es o m i tt ed ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . El l i n g t o n , P. J., a n d Di ll a r d , J., co n cu r

.

5