2 9 7 Ga . 3 45

F INAL COP Y

S 1 5 A0 5 0 4 . P O WERS v . THE S T A TE.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t F a

b ia n P o we rs wa s c o n v ic te d o f fe lo n y m u rd e r a n d p o sse ssio n

o f a fire a rm du rin g th e c o m m issio n o f a fe lo n y in c on n e c tio n with th e sh o o tin g

d e a th o f Alfre d Bo y d

. Ap p e lla n t c o n te n ds th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g

h is re qu e st fo r a ju ry in stru c tio n o n ju stific a tio n b a se d on se lf-d e fe n se o r d e fe nse

o f o th e rs. Bu t th e c o u rt d id n o t e rr, so we a ffirm

. 1

1

. V i ew e d i n t h e l i g h t m ost fa vo ra b le to th e v e rd ic ts, th e e v id e n c e

p re se nte d a t tria l sh owe d th e fo llo win g. On De c e m b e r 2

, 2 0 0 8

, Ap p e lla n t wa s

a t a n a p a rtm e nt in Co lle g e P a rk sm o k in g c ra c k c o c a in e with fo u r o th e r p e o p le

wh e n Bo y d a rriv e d with S h e kita Gib b s. Bo y d sta y e d a sh o rt tim e a n d th e n le ft

1 T he shooting occurred on December 4, 2008. On March 19, 2010, a F ulton County g rand

jury indicted Appellant for malice murder, felony murder based on ag g ravated assault, ag g ravated

assault with a deadly we a p on, p ossession o f a firearm during the commission of a felony

, and

possession of a f

irearm by a first offender probationer. The last c harg e was severed for trial and later

nolle prossed

. A p p e l l ant’s trial beg an on March 26, 2 012, and o n A pril 4

, the jury f ound him not

g uilty of malice murder but g uilty o f the r emaining charg e s. The ag g r avated assault count merg ed

into the felony murder conviction, and Appellant w as sentenced to life in prison for felony murder

and five consecutive y ears for the firearm possession conviction. On April 26, 2012, A ppellant filed

a motion for new trial, which he amended with new counsel on May 1, 2013. After a hearing , the

trial court denied the motion o n May 5, 2014. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the case

was docketed in this Court for the J a nuary 2015 term and submitted for decision on the briefs.with Gib b s. Afte r d ro p p in g h e r o ff a t a n o th e r h o use

, Bo y d re tu rn e d to th e

a p a rtm e nt a n d ro bb e d e v e ry o ne th e re a t gu n p o in t, in c lu d in g ta kin g $ 3 ,0 0 0 fro m

Ap p e lla n t. B o y d th e n fle d in a c a r wh ile p e o p le c h a se d a fte r h im , sh o o tin g a t

h im

.

Afte r th e ro b b e ry

, Gib b s c a lle d Ap p e lla n t to t e l l h im sh e h a d n o th in g to

d o with it, a n d Ap p e lla n t th re a te n e d to k ill h e r if sh e d i d n o t te ll h im wh e re

Bo y d w a s. Two d a y s la te r, Gib b s c a lle d Ap p e lla nt a n d to ld h im th a t Bo y d wa s

a t h e r h o u se

. Le ss th a n 3 0 m in u te s a fte r th a t, Bo y d wa s sh ot with a n AK-4 7

rifle wh ile sittin g in th e d riv e r’s se a t o f h is c a r o u tsid e Gib b s’s h o u se

. He d ie d

fro m g u n sh o t wo u n d s to his c h e st, rig h t a rm

, a n d rig h t sh o u ld e r. A p isto l wa s

fo u n d in sid e th e c a r un de rn e a th wh e re B o y d h a d b e e n sittin g. T h e re wa s n o

in d ic a tio n th a t th e p isto l h a d b e e n fire d

, a n d a ll o f th e b u lle ts fo u nd a t th e sc e n e

c a m e fro m

th e sa m e AK-4 7

.

No witn e sse s sa w th e sh o o tin g itse lf, b u t a witn e ss te stifie d th a t h e sa w

o n e p e rso n — a n d o n ly on e p e rso n — ru nn in g a wa y fro m th e vic tim ’s c a r with

a g un rig h t a fte r th e sh o o tin g

. An o th e r witn e ss te stifie d th a t sh e wa s sittin g in

th e fro n t p a sse n g er se a t o f B o y d ’s c ar wa itin g fo r him to re tu rn fro m Gib b s’s

h o u se

, a n d sh e h e a rd th e sh o ts b e g in a s so o n a s Bo y d g o t in to th e c a r an d sh u t

2th e d o o r, a lth o u g h sh e d id n o t se e th e sh o o te r b e c a u se sh e duc k e d d o wn

.

Th e p o lic e i n v e s tig a tio n e v e ntu a lly le d De te c tiv e Da v id Qu in n to

in te rv ie w A p p e lla n t a

bo u t a y e a r a fte r th e sh o o tin g

. A t tria l, De te c tiv e Qu in n

te stifie d th a t d u rin g th e in te rv ie w, Ap p e lla n t a d m itte d th a t he w a s p re se n t d u rin g

th e sh o o tin g

, b u t h e c la im e d th a t h is frie n d Eric Ga te s, wh o ha d a ls o b e e n a

v ic tim o f th e ro b b e ry b y B o y d

, we n t with him to se rv e a s p ro te c tio n wh ile

Ap p e lla n t c on fro n t ed B o y d to g e t h is m o n e y b a c k

. De te c tiv e Qu in n te stifie d

th a t, a c c o rd in g to A p p e lla n t, Ga te s “ wa s h o ld in g th e AK-4 7 o n th e [c a r] ” wh e n

Ap p e lla n t ta

p p e d o n Bo y d ’s c a r win d o w, a n d Ga te s wa s th e o n e wh o sh ot Bo y d

.

Th e d e te c tiv e a d d e d th a t Ap p e lla n t “n e v e r sa id Mr. Bo y d p ro d uc e d a n y k in d o f

we a p on .” Ga te s h a d b e e n k ille d in a n un re la te d in c id e n t a fe w m on th s a fte r th e

sh o o tin g a n d be fo re th e in te rv ie w. Th e d e fe n s e t h e o r y at tria l w a s th a t Ga te s

wa s th e sh o o te r a n d A p p e lla n t wa s m e re ly a sc a p e g o a t wh o h a d be e n le d in to a n

a m b u sh b y Gib b s. Ap p e lla nt d id n o t te stify

.

A p p e lla n t d o e s no t d isp u te th e le g a l su ffic ie n c y o f th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g

h is c o n v ic tio n s. Ne v e rth e le ss, a s is th is Co u rt’s p ra c tic e i n mu rd e r c a se s, we

h a v e re v ie we d th e re c ord a n d c on c lu d e th a t, wh e n v ie we d i n t h e lig h t m o st

fa v o ra ble to th e ve rd ic ts, th e e v id e n c e pre se n te d a t tria l a n d su m m a riz e d a b o v e

3wa s su ffic ie n t to a u th o riz e a ra tio n a l ju ry to fin d Ap p e lla n t g u ilty b e y o n d a

re a so na b le d o u bt o f th e c rim e s fo r w h ic h h e wa s c o nv ic te d

. S e e Ja c k so n v

.

Virg in ia

, 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7

, 31 9 (9 9 S C 2 7 81

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ). S e e a lso Ve g a

v

. Sta te

, 2 8 5 Ga

. 32

, 3 3 (6 7 3 S E2 d 2 23 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (“ ‘It wa s fo r th e ju ry to

d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f th e witn e sse s a n d to re s o l v e a n y c o n flic ts o r

in c o nsiste nc ie s in th e e v id e n c e .’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )).

2

. Ap pe lla n t’s o nly a rg u m e n t is th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is

re q u e st fo r a ju ry in stru c tio n o n th e d e fe n se o f ju stific a tio n

. Ap pe lla n t c o n te n d s

th a t he wa s e ntitle d to su c h a n in stru c tio n b e c a use

, h e a sse rts, e v id e n c e wa s

p re se nte d a t tria l th a t G a te s sh o t Bo y d in se lf-d e fe n se o r in d e fe n se o f Ap p e lla n t.

S e e Bru n so n v. S ta te

, 2 9 3 G a

. 2 2 6

, 22 7 (7 4 4 S E2 d 6 9 5 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ To a uth o riz e

a ju ry in stru c tio n th e re n e e d o n ly b e slig ht e v id e n c e su pp ortin g th e th e o ry o f th e

c h a rg e a t tria l.” ). 2 Th e c o u rt d e c lin e d to g iv e a ju stific a tio n c h a r g e

, h o w e ve r,

2 The trial court had g ranted the State’s r equest for a jury instruction on parties to crime, see

OCGA § 16-2-20, a

n d the prosecutor arg u ed in closing that even if the jury believed Appellant’s

story that Gates was the shooter, it should find Appellant g uilty as a party to the crimes. U nder that

theory of liabilit y

, Appellant would not be g uilty if Gates acted with justification

– in lawful selfdefense or defense of Appellant

– when he shot B oy d, because Gates would not have c ommitted a

crime. See OCGA §§ 16-2-21 (stating that a party to crime may b e convicted “upon proof that the

crime was committed and that he was a party thereto”); 16-3-21 (establishing the requirements f or

leg al justification based on defense of self or others); D emery v. State, 287 G a. 805, 809 ( 700 SE2d

373) (2010) ( ex plaining that if a person “‘is justified in k illing under OCGA § 16-3-21, he is g uilty

of no crime at all.’” ( cit a t i o n o m i t t e d)). See g e nerally State v. Montanez

, 894 A 2d 928, 937-945

(Conn. 2006) (di s c u ssing the relationship between accessorial liability and a justification defense

4ru lin g th a t th e re wa s n o e vid e n c e to su p po rt it. Th e tria l c ou rt wa s rig h t.

Th e e v id e n c e o f ju stific a tio n o n wh ic h Ap p e lla n t re lie s c o n sists so le ly o f

sta te m e n t s h e a lle g e d ly m a de d u rin g th e se c o n d p a rt o f h is in te rv ie w with

De te c tiv e Qu in n

. Th e first p a rt o f Ap pe lla n t’s in te rv ie w to o k p la c e in a n

in te rv ie w ro o m a t th e p o lic e sta tio n a n d wa s v id e o -r e c o rd e d

. Alth o u g h th e

v id e o re c o rd in g wa s a dmi t t e d in to e v id e n c e a t tria l a n d p la y e d fo r th e ju ry

, it

wa s n o t tra n sc rib e d b y th e c o urt re p o rte r a n d th e v id e o itse lf is n ot in th e re c o rd

o n a p p e a l. Ho we v e r, De te c tiv e Qu in n te stifie d th a t A p pe lla n t n e v e r m e n tio n e d

Ga te s d u rin g th e v id e o t a p e d p o rtio n o f th e in te rv ie w, an d Ap p e lla n t d o e s n o t

d isp u te th a t a c c o u n t.

Th e in te rv ie w th e n c o n tin u e d in a h a l l wa y o u tsid e th e ro o m

, wh e re

De te c tiv e Qu in n su rre p titio u sly m a d e a n a u d io re c o rd in g u sin g a d e v ic e in h is

p o c k e t. Th e re su ltin g re c o rd in g wa s a p pa re ntly of v e ry p oo r q u a lity

. L ik e th e

v id e o, th e a

ud io re c o rd in g itse lf is no t in th e a p p e lla te re c o rd

, b u t a tra n sc rip t th e

S ta te m a d e fro m th e re c o rd in g

, wh i c h i s r ife with no ta tio n s o f in a u d ib le o r

in d istin c t p a ssa g e s, in dic a te s th a t A p p e lla n t m a d e so m e sta te m e n ts re g a rd in g

Ga te s’s a lle ge d ro le in th e sh o o tin g. Ac c o rd in g to th e tra n sc rip t, Ap p e lla n t sa id

available to the principal).

5th a t w h e n h e a n d Ga te s a p pro a c he d th e c a r, Bo y d wa s “ k in d a a c tin g lik e h e

wa n te d to sh o o t” a

n d fu m b le d fo r so m e th in g in th e c a r’s b a c k se a t. Ap p e lla n t

a lso sa id th a t h e s a w th a t Bo y d ha d a gu n. Wh e n De te c tiv e Qu in n a sk e d

Ap p e lla n t d ire c tly if B o y d h a d p u lle d a g u n o n Ga te s, Ap p e lla n t sa id

, “ S * * *

, a s

fa r a s I k n o w,” b u t th e re st o f h is re sp o n se w a s a p p a re n tly in a u d i b l e o n th e

re c o rd in g

.

Th e p ro b le m fo r Ap pe lla n t is th a t th e re c ord d o e s n o t sh o w th a t th ose

sta te m e n ts, wh ic h th e tra n sc rip t in d ic a te s we re m a d e n e a r th e e n d o f th e a u d io

re c o rd in g

, we re e v e r a c tu a lly p re se n te d a s e v id e n c e du rin g th e tria l. At tria l, th e

S ta te h a d th e a

u d io re c o rd in g a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e a nd b e g a n to p la y it fo r th e

ju ry

, b u t th e a

u d io q u a lity wa s so p o o r th a t th e c o urt sto pp e d th e p la yb a c k a t a n

u n k no wn p o in t. Be c a

use o f t h e p o o r a

u d io qu a lity

, c o p ie s o f th e tra n sc rip t o f

th e re c o rd in g we re in itia lly h a nd e d o u t to th e ju ro rs to f o l l o w a lo n g a s th e

re c o rd in g p la y e d

, b u t th e ju ro rs we re re p e a te d ly a d m o n ish e d n o t to re a d a h e a d

,

a n d th e c o p ie s we re c o lle c te d wh e n th e p la yb a c k wa s sto p p e d

. Mo re o v e r, wh ile

th e tra n sc rip t wa s m a

rk e d a s a n e x h i b i t a n d is in th e a p p e lla te re c o rd

, it wa s

n e ith e r a d m itte d in to e vid e n c e n or se n t b a c k with th e ju ry du rin g d e lib e ra tio n s.

Afte r th e a

u d io p la yb a c k wa s sto pp e d

, b o th p a r t i e s a g re e d th a t th e

6c o n te n ts o f th e a ud io -re c o rd e d p o rtio n o f Ap p e lla n t’s in te rv ie w wo u ld in ste a d

b e b ro u g h t o ut th ro u g h th e te stim o n y o f De te c tiv e Qu in n

. Du rin g d e lib e ra tio n s,

th e ju ry se n t th e c o u rt a n o te a sk i n g i f t h e a u d io re c o rd in g wa s a d m itte d in to

e v id e n c e

. With o u t o b

je c tio n

, th e c o u rt a nswe re d

, “ Th e a u d io ta pe wa s a d m itte d

in to e v id e n c e

, h o we v e r, it wa s o f su c h po or q u a lity

, it c o uld n o t b e pla y e d

. Th e

c o n te n ts o f th e a u d i o t a p e we re p re se n te d to y ou th ro u g h th e d ire c t a n d c ro sse x a m in a tio n te stim o n y o f De te c tiv e Qu in n .”

I n d e te rm in in g wh e th e r e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g a j u s t i f i c at i o n i n s t

r u c t i o n w a s

p re se nte d a t tria l, we c a n c o n sid e r o n ly th e e v id e n c e th a t th e re c o rd sh o ws wa s

a c tu a lly p re se n te d to th e ju ry

. S e e Bru n so n, 2 9 3 G a

. a t 2 2 7 -2 28

. A n d th e o n ly

e v id e n c e o f Ap p e lla n t’s sto ry th a t Ga te s sh o t Bo y d th a t th e re c o rd d e m o n stra te s

wa s p re se n te d to th e ju ry wa s in De te c tiv e Qu in n ’s te stim o n y . With re g a rd to

th e h a llwa y p o rtio n o f Ap p e lla n t’s in te rv ie w, De te c tiv e Qu i n n te stifie d th a t

Ap p e lla n t sa id th a t Ga te s h a d a n AK-4 7 h e ld o n th e v ic tim ’s c a r wh e n Ap p e lla n t

a p p ro a c h e d it to c o n fro n t Bo y d a b o u t th e sto le n m o n e y

, a n d th a t Ga te s th e n sh o t

Bo y d ; wh ile th e se sta te m e n ts b y Ap p e lla nt a re n o t re fle c te d in th e tra n sc rip t o f

th e a u dio re c o rd in g

, th e y c o u ld h a v e o c c urre d d u rin g o n e o f th e m a n y p o rtio n s

o f th e in te rv ie w th a t th e tra n sc rip t in d ic a te s we re in a ud ib le

, an d Ap pe lla n t d id

7n o t d isp u te th a t h e m a de th e se sta te m e n ts o n c ro ss-e x a m in a tio n o r o th e rwise

.

Th e d e te c tiv e d id n ot te stify

, e v e n o n c ro ss-e x a m in a tio n

, th a t A p pe lla n t e v e r

in d ic a te d th a t Bo y d h a d p u lle d a g u n o r th a t Ga te s a c te d i n s e l f -d e fe n se

, a n d

th e re wa s n o o th e r e v id e n c e pre se n te d to th e ju ry th a t Ga te s o r Ap pe lla n t a c te d

in se lf-d e fe n se o r in d e fe n se o f o th e rs. Ac c o rd in g ly , th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t e rr

in d e c lin in g to g iv e a ju stific a tio n in stru c tio n

.

Mo r e o v e r, e v e n if we w e re to sp e c u la te th a t, b e fo re th e a u d io p la yb a c k

w a s sto pp e d

, th e ju ry he a rd wh a t th e tra n sc rip t (wh ic h wa s n ot e v i d e n c e )

in d i c a t e s w e r e A

p p e l la n t’s p o o rly re c o rd e d a n d e q uiv o c a l sta te m e n ts su g g e stin g

th a t B o y d in te n d e d to sh o o t a t Ga te s a n d Ap p e lla n t a fte r th e y a p p ro a c h e d h is

c a r, wh e n th a t is c o u p le d with D e te c tiv e Q u i n n ’ s u n d isp ute d te stim o n y th a t

Ap p e lla n t a lso sa id th a t Ga te s h a d a n A K

- 4 7 t r ain e d on th e c a r a t th e tim e

Ap p e lla n t a

p p ro a c he d a

n d kn o c k e d o n th e w in do w, th e n G a te s wa s th e o rig in a l

a g g re sso r e v e n in A p p e lla nt’s v e rsio n o f e ve n ts. An d a d e fe n d a n t is n ot e n title d

to a ju ry in stru c tio n o n ju stific a tio n w h e n th e e vid e n c e is th a t th e su p p o se d ly

ju stifie d p a

rty wa s th e a g g re sso r. S e e OCGA § 16 -3 -2 1 (b ) (3 ) (“ A pe rso n is n o t

ju stifie d in u sin g fo rc e

. . . if he

. . . [w] a s th e a g g re sso r

. . . u n le ss h e with d ra w s

fro m th e e n c o u n te r a n d e ffe c tiv e ly c o m m u n ic a te s to su c h oth e r p e rso n h is in te n t

8to d o so a n d th e o th e r, n o twith sta n d in g , c o ntin u e s o r th re a te n s to c o n tin u e th e

u se o f u n la wfu l fo rc e .” ); B ru n so n 2 93 Ga

. a t 2 2 7 -2 2 8 (h o ld in g th a t th e

d e fe n d a n t wa s n o t e n title d to a se lf-d e fe n se c h a rg e wh e re th e re c o rd sh o we d th a t

th e v ic tim in itia te d a fig h t on ly a fte r th e d e fe n da n t h a d th re a te n e d h i m w i th a

re v o lv e r); P a rk v . S ta te , 2 3 0 Ga . Ap p

. 2 7 4, 2 7 8 (4 95 S E2 d 8 8 6) (1 9 9 8 ).

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

9De c id e d Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 5

.

Mu rd e r. F u lto n S u p e rio r Co u rt. Be fo re Ju d g e Ad a m s.

Jim m o n iq u e R. S . Ro d g e rs, Lo n g D. Vo , fo r a p p e lla n t.

P a u l L. Ho wa rd , Jr., Distric t Atto rn e y , P a ig e Re e se Wh ita k e r, S h e ila E.

Ga llo w, P e g g y R. Ka

tz , Assista n t Distric t Atto rn e y s; S a m u e l S . Ole ns,

Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, P a tric ia B . Atta wa y Bu rto n

, De p u ty Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l,

P a u la K. S m ith , S e n io r Assista nt Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l, Mic h a e l A. Old h a m

, Assista n t Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, fo r a p p e lle e

.

10