Court Opinion

ID: 9838380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 13:05:14.235464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:00.441821
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                                  Decided: September 6, 2023

                 S23A0620. RUTHENBERG v. THE STATE.

       BOGGS, Chief Justice.

       Appellant Kaylynn Shiquez Ruthenberg was convicted of

malice murder and other crimes arising from the shooting death of

James Jones and the robbery of Samuel Gallardo. Appellant

contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his three

prior misdemeanor convictions for simple battery under OCGA § 24-

4-418 and that the admission of this evidence violated OCGA § 24-

4-403. Because Appellant has failed to carry his burden to show

plain error, we affirm. 1

       1 Jones was killed on the evening of February 9, 2015, and Gallardo was

robbed early on February 10, 2015. On April 30, 2015, a Cobb County grand
jury indicted Appellant, along with Jordan Baker and Jonathon Myles, for the
malice murder of Jones, three counts of felony murder, aggravated assault with
a deadly weapon, armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony, robbery by force of Gallardo, and two counts of violating
      1.    The evidence at trial showed as follows. Appellant, Jordan

Baker, and Jonathon Myles knew each other for years and saw each

other daily. In early 2015, Baker began running a robbery scam on

Craigslist. Baker would post ads for cell phones, and when

interested buyers replied, he would set up a meeting in the Jamaica

Cove neighborhood of Cobb County where he and Myles both lived.

When prospective buyers arrived, he would show them an empty cell

phone box, and when they produced the money for the phone, he

would snatch it from them and run away using shortcuts through

the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, OCGA §§ 16-15-1 to
16-15-11. The indictment also charged Appellant and his co-indictees with the
attempted robbery of Thomas Tuffa. Baker and Myles waived their right
against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and agreed to testify against Appellant in the hope that the State
later would reduce the charges against them. At a trial from October 31 to
November 7, 2017, the jury acquitted Appellant of the attempted robbery of
Tuffa but found him guilty of the remaining charges. On November 20, 2017,
the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve life in prison without the
possibility of parole for malice murder, a total of 25 years consecutive for
robbery by force and the firearm-possession offense, and concurrent terms of
20 years for armed robbery and 15 years each for the two counts of street gang
terrorism. The felony murder counts were vacated by operation of law, and the
count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon merged. On the same day,
Appellant filed a motion for new trial, which he amended with new counsel on
July 10, 2019. After a hearing on August 1, 2019, the trial court entered an
order denying the motion on September 10, 2019. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal, and the case was docketed in this Court for the April 2023
term and submitted for decision on the briefs.
                                      2
the neighborhood. Baker almost got caught once, so he enlisted

Appellant and Myles, whom he knew to be in the Crips gang, to help

him.

       On February 9, 2015, Baker and Myles picked up Appellant

from his apartment complex on the other side of town and returned

to their neighborhood. Jones had responded to one of Baker’s ads

and was scheduled to come by that evening. Appellant, Baker, and

Myles discussed robbing Jones and agreed to split the proceeds.

When Jones arrived at the address on Jamaica Cove that Baker had

given him, Baker approached Jones’s car alone while Appellant and

Myles stayed back. Baker got into the front passenger seat of Jones’s

car, leaving the door open.

       After a couple of minutes, Appellant approached the front

passenger-side door, and Baker told him that Jones was not falling

for the scam. Appellant then pulled out his .45-caliber Glock pistol

and pointed it at Jones. When Jones tried to drive off, Appellant

fired a shot that struck Jones on his right shoulder and went

through his left carotid artery. As the car sped forward, Baker

                                 3
jumped out, and the car crashed into a vehicle in a yard and then

into a tree. Appellant, Baker, and Myles initially fled, but at

Appellant’s direction, Baker and Myles accompanied Appellant back

to the car, where they took Jones’s shoes and cell phone. Appellant

grabbed Jones’s cell phone from Myles and fired another shot that

struck Jones on the right side of the neck and exited out the left side

of his head. As Appellant, Baker, and Myles ran from the scene,

Myles dropped the shoes. Jones was dead from his gunshot wounds

by the time responding officers arrived at the scene. Surveillance

footage from a house on Jamaica Cove showed three figures

illuminated by a light running from the direction of Jones’s car near

the time of the shooting.

     Appellant, Myles, and Baker went to Appellant’s apartment

later that evening. Between midnight and 12:30 a.m. on February

10, 2015, they left the apartment to walk to a nearby store to buy

cigarettes. While they were out walking, they came across Gallardo,

who was waiting for a taxi outside a restaurant that had just closed.

Appellant said, “let’s rob him,” and told Baker and Myles to subdue

                                  4
Gallardo and take his wallet. Baker knocked Gallardo to the ground

and held him down while Myles took his wallet. Appellant, Baker,

and Myles then ran toward Appellant’s apartment, but a police

officer responding to a different incident spotted them. Appellant

made it back to his apartment, but the officer and his partner

detained Baker and Myles and found Gallardo’s wallet on the

ground nearby.

     Baker and Myles were taken in separate vehicles to police

headquarters, where they were put in different rooms and advised

of their rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (86 SCt

1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966), which each then waived. After initially

denying any involvement, Baker and Myles said that it was

Appellant’s idea to rob Gallardo, and they both identified Appellant

as the person who shot Jones. Baker also said that Appellant and

Myles were associated with the Crips gang. Myles was carrying a

neatly folded blue bandana.

     Based on the information from Baker and Myles, the police

brought Appellant to police headquarters, where he was interviewed

                                 5
after being advised of his Miranda rights and waiving them. A video

recording of Appellant’s interview was later played at trial.

Appellant, who was carrying a neatly folded blue bandana,

acknowledged that he was present at the start of the confrontation

between Baker and Myles and Gallardo but claimed he immediately

ran off and was not involved in the robbery. Appellant admitted that

he knew about the Craigslist scam, that he talked to Baker about

robbing Jones, that he was present when Jones crashed his car, that

he heard gunshots, and that after running away, he went back to

the car, where Myles took Jones’s shoes. Appellant repeatedly

denied shooting Jones and denied even owning a gun.

     While Appellant was being interviewed, the police were

searching his apartment pursuant to a search warrant. During the

search, the police found Jones’s cell phone, Appellant’s .45-caliber

Glock pistol, and another neatly folded blue bandana. When

Appellant was told about the gun found in his apartment, he

admitted that he was the person who shot Jones but claimed that he

only shot Jones once. He denied shooting Jones in self-defense and

                                 6
said that he shot Jones by accident. Ballistics testing later matched

two shell casings recovered from Jones’s car to the pistol found in

Appellant’s apartment, and Appellant’s DNA was found on the

pistol’s handle. A fingerprint from the interior of the front

passenger-side door window of Jones’s car was matched to

Appellant.

     At trial, Myles testified that Appellant directed the attack on

Gallardo, and Baker and Myles both testified that Appellant shot

Jones. Myles acknowledged that he and Appellant were associated

with the Crips gang, that Appellant brought him into the gang, and

that Appellant was responsible for guiding him and telling him what

to do. The State’s gang expert testified that the color blue is

associated with the Crips, that Crips members often carry neatly

folded blue bandanas to signify to others that they are members of

the gang, and that the neatly folded blue bandanas found on Myles

and Appellant and in Appellant’s apartment were indicators that

they were Crips members. The expert further testified that murder,

aggravated assault, and armed robbery are the types of crimes

                                 7
committed by the Crips. The State introduced certified copies of

Appellant’s three prior misdemeanor convictions for simple battery,

which were based on guilty pleas.2

     2.    Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting

evidence of his three prior misdemeanor convictions for simple

battery under OCGA § 24-4-418, because the State presented no

evidence that he was in a gang when he committed the prior crimes

or that he committed them to further the interests of a gang.3

     2 One of the battery convictions was accompanied by a conviction for

misdemeanor obstruction of a 911 call, but Appellant’s arguments focus on the
battery convictions.
      3 OCGA § 24-4-418 states:

      (a)   In a criminal proceeding in which the accused is accused of
            conducting or participating in criminal gang activity in
            violation of Code Section 16-15-4, evidence of the accused’s
            commission of criminal gang activity, as such term is defined
            in Code Section 16-15-3, shall be admissible and may be
            considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is
            relevant.
      (b)   In a proceeding in which the prosecution intends to offer
            evidence under this Code section, the prosecutor shall
            disclose such evidence to the accused, including statements
            of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony
            that is expected to be offered, at least ten days in advance of
            trial, unless the time is shortened or lengthened or pretrial
            notice is excused by the judge upon good cause shown.
      (c)   This Code section shall not be the exclusive means to admit
            or consider evidence described in this Code section.

                                     8
However, Appellant did not object to the admission of this evidence

on this ground before or during trial, so we review this claim only

for plain error. See Mann v. State, 307 Ga. 696, 704 (838 SE2d 305)

(2020) (applying plain error review where the basis on which the

evidence had been challenged at trial was not the same basis on

which the evidence was challenged on appeal).

      To show plain error, Appellant must point to an error that was

not affirmatively waived, that was clear and obvious beyond

reasonable dispute, that affected his substantial rights, and that

seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

judicial proceedings. See Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233, 243 (794 SE2d

67) (2016). The third component of this test requires a defendant to

make an “affirmative showing” that the error probably did affect the

outcome below. Id. (cleaned up). “Satisfying all four prongs of this

standard is difficult, as it should be.” Id. (cleaned up).

       As relevant here, OCGA § 16-15-3 (1) (J) defines “criminal gang activity”
to include the commission of “[a]ny criminal offense in the State of Georgia . . .
that involves violence, . . . whether designated as a felony or not, and
regardless of the maximum sentence that could be imposed or actually was
imposed.”
                                        9
     Appellant has not made an affirmative showing that any error

in admitting the evidence of his three prior misdemeanor convictions

for simple battery under OCGA § 24-4-418 likely affected the

outcome of his trial. Appellant’s argument for harm focuses on the

fact that this is a murder case and his prior convictions were for

crimes of violence. But the evidence of Appellant’s guilt for the

murder of Jones was overwhelming. He admitted that he shot Jones.

His fingerprint was found inside Jones’s car. His DNA was found on

the gun that matched the shell casings in Jones’s car. The murder

weapon and Jones’s cell phone were recovered from his apartment

the morning after the shooting. And his friends Baker and Myles

both identified him as the shooter before and during trial. Thus,

Appellant has failed to demonstrate that any error in admitting the

evidence of his three prior misdemeanor convictions for simple

battery likely affected the outcome of his trial. See Tyner v. State,

305 Ga. 326, 331 (825 SE2d 129) (2019) (holding that the defendant

failed to satisfy the third part of the plain error test in light of the

overwhelming evidence of his guilt). Accordingly, he has not carried

                                  10
his burden to show plain error as to this claim. See Jones v. State,

314 Ga. 466, 469 (877 SE2d 568) (2022) (“We need not analyze all of

the elements of th[e] [plain error] test when . . . the defendant has

failed to establish one of them.” (cleaned up)).4

     3.    Appellant also contends that the admission of the

evidence of his prior convictions violated OCGA § 24-4-403, because

the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by

the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues.5 Contrary

to Appellant’s assertion, he did not object to the admission of this

evidence based on OCGA § 24-4-403 at any time before or during

     4 Appellant’s first enumeration of error mentions the alleged lack of a

hearing, the absence of a limiting instruction, and due process, but in the
accompanying argument section, he does not mention a hearing or a limiting
instruction and refers only in passing to due process, making no substantive
argument regarding these matters. Accordingly, any claim on these grounds is
deemed abandoned. See Supreme Court Rule 22 (“Any enumerated error not
supported by argument . . . in the brief shall be deemed abandoned. . . .”).
      5 OCGA § 24-4-403 states:

      Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
      substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
      confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or by considerations
      of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
      cumulative evidence.
                                    11
trial. Thus, we review this claim only for plain error. See Mann, 307

Ga. at 704.

     Appellant has not made an affirmative showing that any error

in admitting the evidence of his prior convictions in violation of

OCGA § 24-4-403 likely affected the outcome of his trial. Again,

Appellant’s argument for harm focuses on the fact that this is a

murder case and his prior convictions were for crimes of violence.

But as we explained above in Division 2, the evidence of Appellant’s

guilt for the murder of Jones was overwhelming, including his

admission to shooting Jones, his fingerprint inside Jones’s car, his

DNA on the gun that matched the shell casings in Jones’s car, the

discovery of the murder weapon and Jones’s cell phone in

Appellant’s apartment the morning after the shooting, and the

incriminating pretrial statements and trial testimony of Baker and

Myles. Thus, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that any error in

admitting the evidence of his three prior misdemeanor convictions

for simple battery likely affected the outcome of his trial. See Tyner,

                                  12
305 Ga. at 331. Accordingly, he has not carried his burden to show

plain error as to this claim.

     Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

                                13