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

De c id e d: No v e m

be r 1 7

, 2 0 14

S 14 A1 3 3 8 . LEWIS v . THE S TATE.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t Bra n d o n Le wis wa s c o n v ic te d o f fe lo n y m u rd e r a n d o th e r

c rim e s in c o n ne c tio n w ith th e sh o o tin g de a th o f D e o n te Hu dso n

. On a pp e a l, h e

a rg u e s o n ly th a t th e e vid e n c e p re se n te d a t tria l did n o t su p p o rt h is c o n v ic tio n s.

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 o we d th e fo llo win g

. Hu d so n liv e d with his m o th e r in th e

Bo we n Ho m e s a

p a rtm e n t c o m

p le x in Atla n ta

. On th e m o rn in g o f No v e m b e r 1 3

,

2 0 0 7, h is m o th e r se n t h im to a n e a rb y sto re to b u y sta m p s. As Hu d so n wa lk e d

1 Hudson was killed on November 1 3

, 2007. On November 17, 2009, Appellant was indicted

in F ulton County for malice murder, two counts of felony murder, criminal attempt to c ommit armed robbery

, ag g ravated assault with a deadly w eapon, and possess i o n of a firearm during the

commission of a felony

. T h e case was tried from May 2 4 to 28, 2010. The trial court g ranted Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the charg e of criminal attempt to commit

armed robbery and the related felony murder count. The jury then found Appe l l ant not g uilty of

malice murd e r b u t g u ilty of the remaining charg es. The trial court sentenced him to serve life in prison for felony murder b a s e d on ag g ravated assault and five consecutive y ears f or the firearm conviction; the ag g ravated assault c ount merg ed. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, which he amended on December 16, 2011. After a n evidentiary hearing

, the trial court denied the

motion on April 10, 2012. Appellant filed a timely notice o f appeal, a nd after a delay in obtaining

the record from the trial c ourt clerk, the case was d o cketed in this Court for the September 2014 term
and submitted for decision on the briefs.to th e sto re , Ap p e lla n t, wh o wa s th e n 1 6 y e a rs o ld

, 1 4 -y e a r-o ld Mo n tre z Hu ff,

a n d two o th e r b o y s p o sitio n e d th e m se lv e s n e a r H u d so n ’s a p artm e n t a n d wa ite d

fo r h im to re tu rn

. 2 As Hu d so n a pp ro a c h e d, th e b o y s sig n a le d to e a c h oth e r, a n d

Ap p e lla n t th e n c o n fro n te d Hu d so n o n th e p a tio o f th e a pa rtm e n t. T he two b e g a n

fig h tin g , a n d H u d so n h it Ap p e lla n t in th e fa c e se v e ra l tim e s. Hu d so n th e n ra n

a c ro ss th e stre e t to e s c a p e , b u t A p p e lla n t p u lle d o u t a g u n a n d sh o t him in th e

rig h t b u tto c k ; th e b ulle t to re in to Hu dso n ’ s a b d o m e n , se v e rin g a n a rte ry a n d

c a u sin g m a ssiv e in te rn a l b le e d in g

. He c o l l a p s e d b e sid e a d u m p ste r, a n d

Ap p e lla n t, Hu ff, a n d th e o th e r two b o y s fle d th e sc e n e

. Hu d so n wa s still a liv e

wh e n a n a m

b u la n c e a rriv e d , b u t h e d ie d a t th e h o sp ita l la te r th a t d a y

.

Afte r th e sh o o tin g , Ap p e lla n t to o k a MARTA b u s to sc h o ol. W h e n h e g o t

to sc h o ol l a t e , h e we n t to th e n u rse ’s o ffic e c o m p la in in g o f a he a d a c h e

. His

c lo th e s w e re ru m

p l e d ; h i s e y e s we re p u ffy ; a n d h e v o m ite d sh o rtly a fte r

a r r i v i n g

. Ap pe lla n t to ld th e n u rse th a t h e ra n in to a wa ll a t a MARTA s t a t i o n

th a t m o rn in g , a n d h e pa c e d n e rv o u sly a s h e re p e a te d ly sa id th a t h e wa n te d to g o

h o m e . Th e n u rse c a lle d Ap p e lla n t’s g ra n d m o th e r to ta k e h im h o m e , bu t wh e n

2 Huff w as indicted with Appellant, but two weeks before trial, Huff offered to testify ag ainst Appellant and their trials were severed. The State dismissed all charg es ag ainst Huff a few day s after Appellant’s trial concluded. The record d oes not indicate w hether the other two boy s were indicted

or even identified.

2Ap p e lla n t fo u n d o u t th a t sh e wo u ld h a v e to ta k e th e b u s to g e t h im

, he wa lk e d

o u t o f th e o ffic e a n d le ft th e sc h o o l.

Two d a y s a fte r th e sh o o tin g , Ap pe lla nt g a v e a v id e o ta pe d sta te m e n t to th e

p o lic e , wh ic h wa s la te r p l a y e d fo r th e ju ry a t tria l. Ap pe lla n t, wh o

a c k n o wle d g e d th a t h is n ic k n a m e wa s “S h o rtn e c k ,” sa id th a t h e v isite d a frie n d

a t Bo we n Ho m e s o n th e m o rn in g o f N o v e m b e r 13 b e fo re a rriv in g a t sc h o o l a t

1 0 : 0 0 a .m

. Wh e n a n o ffic e r a sk e d a b ou t Ap p e lla n t’s b ru ise d e y e , h e sa id th a t

h e ra n in to a

wa ll a t Bo we n Ho m e s wh ile ru n nin g to c a tc h a b u s to sc h o o l.

At tria l, two witn e sse s id e n tifie d Ap p e lla n t a s th e bo y wh o sh o t Hu d so n

.

Am b e r Ask e w liv e d a c ro ss th e stre e t fro m H u d so n ’s a p a rtm e n t a n d sa w th e

e n tire in c id e nt. Alth ou g h sh e in itia lly to ld th e p olic e th a t sh e c ou ld n o t id e n tify

th e sh o o te r b e c a

u se o f a sty in h e r e y e , sh e la te r to ld a d e te c tiv e th a t sh e sa w a

b o y sh e k n e w a s Sh ortn e c k sh o o t Hu d so n

. At tria l, Ask e w id e n tifie d Ap p e lla n t

a s S h o rtn e c k

a n d e x p la in e d th a t sh e in itia lly lie d to th e p o lic e b e c a use sh e d id

n o t wa nt to g e t in v o lv e d

. Th e se c o n d witn e s s w a s H u f f

, wh o te stifie d th a t o n

th e m orn in g o f N o v e m

b e r 1 3

, two b o y s wo k e h im b y th ro w in g r o c k s a t h is

win do w. S h o rtly a fte r jo in in g th e b oy s o u tsid e h is a p artme n t

, H u f

f sa w

Ap p e lla n t, wh o m Hu ff c a lle d S h o rtn e c k

, ru n n in g th ro ug h th e p a tio s ou tsid e o f

3Hu d so n ’s b u ild in g

. Hu ff th e n wa tc h e d a s Ap p e lla n t an d Hu d so n fo ug ht. Wh e n

Ap p e lla n t p ulle d o u t a g u n , Hu ff tu rn e d a n d ra n , h e a rin g a sin g le g un sh o t a s h e

re a c h e d h is a

pa rtm e n t d o o r.

2

. Ap p e lla n t a rg u e s firs t t h at th e e v id e n c e p re se nte d a t tria l wa s le g a lly

i n s u f f ic ie n t to su p p o rt h is c o n v ic tio n s be c a u se th e S ta te ’s two k e y witn e sse s ,

Ask e w a n d Hu ff, we re so u n re liab le th a t th e ir te stim o n y sh o uld b e c o n sid e re d

c irc u m sta n tia l ra th e r th a n d ire c t e v id e n c e

. Th u s, Ap pe lla n t c o n tin u e s, th is c a se

is g o v e rn e d b y fo r me r OCGA § 2 4 -4 -6

, wh ic h sa id

, “ To wa rra n t a c o n v ic tio n

o n c irc um sta n tia l e v id e n c e , th e p ro v e d fa c ts sh a ll n o t o n ly b e c on siste n t with th e

h y p oth e sis o f gu ilt, b u t sh a l l e x c lu d e e v e ry oth e r re a so n a b le hy p oth e sis sa v e th a t

o f th e g u ilt o f th e a c c u se d .” 3

H o we v e r, d ire c t e v id e nc e fro m a witn e ss w h o o b se rv e d a c rim e is n o t

c o n v e rte d in to c irc um sta n tia l e v id e n c e by th e wi t n e s s ’s c re dib ility o r la c k

th e re o f. An d wh e th e r a witn e ss’s te stim on y sh o uld b e b e lie ve d is “ a m a tte r to

b e d e c id e d b y th e ju ry th a t sa w a n d h e a r d t h e te stim o n y , no t b y a n a p p e lla te

c o u rt re v ie win g a t r a n s c rip t.” Wa lk e r v

. S ta te

, Ca se No s. S 1 4 A0 8 8 2

,

3 T his case was tried under Georg ia’s old Evidence Code. F ormer OCGA § 24-4-6 is carried forward in the new Evidence Code as OCGA § 24-14-6.

4S 1 4 A0 8 8 3

, d e c id e d S e p t. 2 2, 2 0 1 4 (2 0 14 WL 4 6 6 75 27

, a t * 2 ). 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 2 3 ) (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 so lv 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 nc e .’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )). Wh e n v ie we d in th e lig h t

m o st 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 n te d a t tria l a n d su m m a riz e d

a b o v e wa s su ffic ie nt 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 uilty b e y o n d

a re a so n a b le d o u b t o f th e c rim e s fo r wh ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d a nd se n te n c e d

. S e e

Ja c k so n v . Virg in ia

, 4 4 3 U.S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

3

. Ap p e lla n t a lso a rg ue s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d by fa ilin g to d ir e c t a

v e rd ic t of a c q u itta l o n a ll c o u n ts a n d by fa ilin g to e xe rc ise its d isc re tio n to g ra n t

a n e w tria l b a se d o n th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . Ho we v e r,

“ [w] h e th e r a n a

p p e lla n t is a sk in g th is c o u rt to re v i e w a [tria l]

c o u rt’s re fu sa l to g ra nt a n e w tria l [ o n t h e g e n e ra l g ro u n d s] o r its

re fu sa l to g ra n t a m o tio n fo r d ire c te d v e rd ic t, th is c o u r t c a n on ly

re v ie w th e c a se u nd e r th e sta n d a rd e sp ou se d in Ja c k so n v

. Virg in ia

, 4 4 3 U.S

. 3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 81

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 79 ), to de te rm in e if

th e e v i d e n c e , wh e n v ie we d in th e lig h t m ost fa vo ra b le to th e

p ro se c u tio n , su p p o rts th e v e rd ic t.”

Wa lk e r, 2 0 1 4 WL 4 6 6 7 5 2 7

, a t * 2 n

. 2 ( ci t a tio n o m itte d ). An d we h a v e

c o n c lu d e d in Div isio n 2 a b o v e t h a t t h e e v id e n c e pre se n te d in th is c a se wa s

le g a lly su ffic ie n t u n d e r th e Ja c k so n v . Virg in iasta nd a rd

.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d

. All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

5