Carter v. State ( 2022 )

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: August 9, 2022
S22A0432. CARTER v. THE STATE.
BETHEL, Justice.
After a jury trial in June 2016, Woodrow Carter was convicted
of malice murder in connection with the death of James Mills. He
appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction and that the jury should have had the option of convicting
him of concealing the death of another. 1 We disagree and affirm.
The crimes occurred on July 20, 2001. On September 13, 2010, a
1
Richmond County grand jury jointly indicted Carter, Marcus McCladdie,
Derrick Robinson, and Marquise Redfield for the malice murder of James Mills
(Count 1) and felony murder based on the aggravated assault of Mills (Count
2). Redfield pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, and McCladdie pled guilty
to concealing the death of another. Their cases are not part of this appeal. It is
unclear from the record how Robinson’s case was resolved. At the conclusion of
a trial held on June 8, 2016, the jury found Carter guilty of both charges. The
trial court sentenced Carter to serve life in prison on Count 1. The trial court
purported to merge Count 2 with Count 1, but Count 2 was actually vacated
by operation of law. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 371-372 (4) (434 SE2d
479) (1993). Carter timely filed a motion for new trial on June 17, 2016, which
he later amended through new counsel. After a hearing, the trial court denied
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the
evidence presented at trial showed the following. Carter, Marcus
McCladdie, Derrick Robinson, and Marquise Redfield often spent
time together dealing cocaine. On July 20, 2001, Carter, Robinson,
and Redfield picked up McCladdie and drove to Robinson’s cousin’s
apartment in Augusta where they regularly gathered to socialize,
relax, and prepare drugs. Robinson gave James Mills directions to
the apartment, and Mills arrived sometime later with
approximately $50,000 to $75,000 worth of cocaine. Redfield
testified that he and Robinson planned to murder Mills because they
believed he was “coming short on the drugs” and “overtaxing.”
McCladdie testified that when Mills knocked on the door to the
apartment, Carter ran to the bathroom and Redfield ran upstairs
while McCladdie stayed where he was. Robinson opened the door
and greeted Mills, and then Carter and Redfield emerged from
hiding. McCladdie testified that Carter and the others were acting
the motion, as amended, on August 16, 2021. Carter filed a timely notice of
appeal. The case was docketed in this Court for the April 2022 term and was
submitted for a decision on the briefs.
2
“like they knew what to do.” Redfield pointed his gun at Mills, and
he, Robinson, and Carter then took Mills into the kitchen. Redfield
testified that McCladdie bound Mills with duct tape, and that he and
McCladdie strangled Mills to death with a cord from a clothes iron.
McCladdie told the police that it was Redfield and Robinson who
strangled Mills, though he testified at trial that Redfield was the
one who strangled Mills.
Mills’s body was rolled up inside a comforter, and Carter,
McCladdie, Robinson, and Redfield then loaded Mills’s body into
Mills’s vehicle. Redfield drove Mills’s vehicle to Carter’s mobile
home in South Carolina, with Carter, Robinson, and McCladdie
following in Robinson’s car. In Carter’s backyard, a large hole had
been dug. It contained an empty refrigerator or freezer, and a
backhoe sat nearby. Mills’s body was placed into the appliance in
the hole and buried there. The men divided the cocaine Mills had
brought with him among themselves, with Carter receiving a couple
of ounces.
In 2008, Mills’s vehicle was discovered. Two years later,
3
Redfield told law enforcement that he knew where Mills was buried.
Police then recovered Mills’s remains from Carter’s backyard. Police
interviewed Carter, who initially denied any knowledge of the
murder before admitting he had been present for the murder and
burial, though he claimed that Robinson, Redfield, and McCladdie
had been the ones who committed the crimes. Carter admitted in the
interview that he received a couple of ounces of Mills’s cocaine in
exchange for his silence. 2
2. Carter argues that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781,
61 LE2d 560) (1979), to support his conviction for malice murder
because it did not show that he was a party to Mills’s death by
strangulation. 3 He also argues that the evidence was insufficient as
a matter of Georgia law because the testimony of one of the
2 In contrast to the testimony of McCladdie, Redfield testified that Carter
did not participate in the murder and that Carter was threatened in order to
coerce him into allowing the body to be buried at his home in South Carolina.
3 While Carter challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain both
guilty verdicts against him, his challenge to the felony murder count is moot
because that count was vacated by operation of law. See Collett v. State, 305
Ga. 853, 855 (1) n.2 (828 SE2d 362) (2019).
4
accomplices implicating him in the crime was not corroborated. We
disagree with both contentions.
(a) Carter first argues that the evidence was insufficient
because there was no evidence that he was a party to Mills’s murder.
When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence [as a matter of constitutional due process], we
view all of the evidence presented at trial in the light most
favorable to the verdict[s] and ask whether any rational
trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was
convicted.
Jones v. State, 304 Ga. 594, 598 (2) (820 SE2d 696) (2018) (citing
Jackson, 443 U. S. at 318–319 (III) (B)). “We leave to the jury the
resolution of conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence, credibility
of witnesses, and reasonable inferences to be derived from the facts,
and we do not reweigh the evidence.” (Citations and punctuation
omitted.) Harris v. State, 313 Ga. 225, 229 (2) (869 SE2d 461) (2022).
OCGA § 16-2-20 (b) provides that
[a] person is concerned in the commission of a crime only
if he: (1) [d]irectly commits the crime; (2) [i]ntentionally
causes some other person to commit the crime under such
circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any
crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity; (3)
5
[i]ntentionally aids or abets in the commission of the
crime; or (4) [i]ntentionally advises, encourages, hires,
counsels, or procures another to commit the crime.
Moreover, “[w]hile proof of a shared criminal intent with the actual
perpetrator is necessary to establish that one is a party to the crime,
shared criminal intent may be inferred from the person’s conduct
before, during, and after the crime.” (Citation and punctuation
omitted.) Bowen v. State, 299 Ga. 875, 877 (1) (792 SE2d 691) (2016).
See also Powell v. State, 307 Ga. 96, 99 (1) (834 SE2d 822) (2019).
Carter argues that the evidence here was insufficient because
there was no testimony demonstrating that he knew about or
participated in the agreement to kill Mills or that he was otherwise
a party to the murder. Carter relies on Redfield’s testimony that
Carter did not participate in the murder and that Redfield
threatened him into allowing Mills to be buried in his backyard,
which he argues shows that he did not participate willingly.
However, McCladdie testified extensively at trial about Carter’s
involvement immediately prior to, during, and after the murder, and
further testified that the attack on Mills appeared to be pre-
6
orchestrated. To the extent McCladdie’s testimony conflicts with
Redfield’s, that inconsistency was for the jury to resolve, and the
jury was entitled to disbelieve Redfield’s version of events. See
Graves v. State, 298 Ga. 551, 553 (1) (783 SE2d 891) (2016) (“[I]t is
axiomatic that resolving evidentiary conflicts and assessing witness
credibility are within the exclusive province of the jury.” (citing
Hampton v. State, 272 Ga. 284 (1) (527 SE2d 872) (2000))). Thus,
despite conflicts in the evidence regarding Carter’s role in the
killing, when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s
verdicts, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Carter guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt as a party to the crime of malice murder.
See Jackson, 443 U. S. at 319 (III) (B); Eckman v. State, 274 Ga. 63,
65 (1) (548 SE2d 310) (2001) (concluding that the evidence was
sufficient to find that defendant was a party to the crime where,
inter alia, she was present when the crimes were committed, fled
the crime scene with her companions, and “used the fruits” of the
crimes).
(b) Carter also argues that McCladdie was an accomplice to the
7
murder and that his testimony was not sufficiently corroborated.
OCGA § 24-14-8 provides in pertinent part:
The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to
establish a fact. However, in certain cases, including . . .
felony cases where the only witness is an accomplice, the
testimony of a single witness shall not be sufficient.
Nevertheless, corroborating circumstances may dispense
with the necessity for the testimony of a second witness. .
..
Thus, when the only witness to testify at trial is an accomplice,
corroborating evidence is required to support a guilty verdict. See
Edwards v. State, 299 Ga. 20, 22 (1) (785 SE2d 869) (2016). Whether
accomplice testimony has been sufficiently corroborated is a
question for the jury, and even slight corroborating evidence of a
defendant’s participation in a crime is sufficient. See Raines v. State,
304 Ga. 582, 588 (2) (a) (820 SE2d 679) (2018) (citing Parks v. State,
302 Ga. 345 (806 SE2d 529) (2017)).
Here, although Carter argues that McCladdie’s testimony
about Carter’s involvement in the murder was not corroborated, this
argument fails. In addition to McCladdie’s testimony about Carter’s
participation, Redfield testified that Carter was present in the
8
apartment during the murder and that after Mills’s body was loaded
into Mills’s vehicle, Carter followed Redfield in a separate vehicle to
Carter’s house. In an interview with the police that was played for
the jury, Carter initially denied any knowledge of the murder before
admitting that he was with Robinson, Redfield, and McCladdie
during the murder and burial. Carter did not mention being
threatened at any point – which undercut Redfield’s testimony on
this point – and he admitted receiving a couple of ounces of Mills’s
cocaine in exchange for his silence about the crimes. And Carter
concealed Mills’s body in his backyard for several years after the
murder. Accordingly, Redfield’s testimony, Carter’s statements to
the police, and the location of Mills’s body provided sufficient
corroboration of McCladdie’s testimony regarding Carter’s
participation in the murder. See Sams v. State, ___ Ga. ___ (__ SE2d
__), 2022 WL 2349867 (Case No. S22A0305, decided June 30, 2022)
(holding testimony of second accomplice, in addition to non-
accomplice evidence, was sufficient to corroborate accomplice
testimony); Floyd v. State, 272 Ga. 65, 66 (1) (525 SE2d 683) (2000)
9
(defendant’s own statements served to corroborate accomplice
testimony).
3. Carter next argues that the trial court should have granted
his motion for new trial in order to “correct the manifest injustice of
the District Attorney allowing the actual murderer to plead guilty to
concealing the death of another . . . while disallowing [Carter’s]
request to allow the jury to have the verdict option of finding
[Carter] guilty of concealing the death of another.” We disagree that
this enumeration presents any grounds for the reversal of the trial
court’s denial of Carter’s motion for new trial.
Carter fails to explain how the jury finding him guilty of
another crime – that is, concealing the death of another – would
have affected his guilty verdict on the murder count. The crime of
concealing a death, as defined in OCGA § 16-10-31 is distinct from
malice murder, and Carter concedes that it is not a lesser-included
offense. The two offenses have entirely different elements and
require proof of different facts. Compare OCGA § 16-5-1 (a) (“A
person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with
10
malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of
another human being.”) with OCGA § 16-10-31 (“A person who, by
concealing the death of any other person, hinders a discovery of
whether or not such person was unlawfully killed is guilty of a
felony. . . .”). Cf. Chapman v. State, 280 Ga. 560, 561 (4) (629 SE2d
220) (2006) (noting that the crime of concealing a death is not
included in felony murder). The trial court noted the same when it
denied the requested charge during the charge conference.
Accordingly, we see no error in the trial court’s refusal to give the
instruction, and Carter’s argument regarding the injustice or
unfairness of this outcome fails to set forth a sound legal basis for
deciding otherwise. Cf. State v. Wooten, 273 Ga. 529, 531 (2) (543
SE2d 721) (2001) (“In the district attorney’s role as an administrator
of justice, he or she has broad discretion in making decisions prior
to trial about who to prosecute, what charges to bring, and which
sentence to seek[.]” (footnotes omitted)).
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
11