Baker v. State

312 Ga. 363

863 S.E.2d 55

BAKER

v.The STATE.

S21A0686

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: September 8, 2021

Betsey L. Tate, Southwestern Circuit Public Defender's Office, 510 W. Lamar Street, 2nd Floor, Americus, Georgia 31709, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Mark Samuel Lindemann, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Bradford Lee Rigby, District Attorney, Jennifer Dawn Hart, A.D.A., Cordele Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, PO Box 5510, Cordele, Georgia 31010, for Appellee.

Colvin, Justice.

Following a jury trial, Nathaniel Baker was convicted of felony murder and other offenses in connection with crimes committed against Craigory Burch, Jr., Jasmine Hendricks, and C. B., a minor child.¹ On appeal, Baker argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to present evidence of criminal gang activity. We affirm.

1. Appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions for the felony murder of Burch and the aggravated assaults of Hendricks and C. B. When evaluating the sufficiency of evidence as a matter of constitutional due process, "the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Citation and emphasis omitted.) Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). "This Court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hayes v. State , 292 Ga. 506, 506, 739 S.E.2d 313 (2013).

Viewed in this light, the evidence presented at trial showed that, at all relevant times, Baker was a member of the "G-Shine Bloods," a subsect of the Bloods gang, along with Dabrentise Overstreet, Wayne Jordan,² Anjevell Johnson, Earnest Holcomb, and Rosalyn Swain. On the evening of January 20, 2016, Overstreet, Jordan, Johnson, Holcomb, and Swain were hanging out with Katherine Tillman at her house when the group decided to commit a robbery. They settled on robbing Burch, whom the group knew had recently won over $400,000 playing the lottery and had used a portion of his winnings to purchase a house where he lived with Hendricks and their three children. Overstreet, Johnson, and Baker had previously discussed robbing Burch because they believed he had been "showing off" his lottery winnings.

Overstreet called Baker, informed him of the plan, and asked Baker to bring a weapon. Baker and his girlfriend, Keyana Dyous, arrived at Tillman's house around 9:00 p.m., and Baker opened the trunk of his car to show Overstreet an Intratec 9mm pistol that Baker was known to carry. The two men then entered Tillman's house and further discussed the plan to rob Burch. Soon thereafter, the group headed out in two vehicles to Burch's house. Initially, Dyous drove Baker and Johnson, while Swain drove Holcomb and Overstreet. On the drive, the two cars pulled into a parking lot so that Overstreet could get into Dyous's car with Baker and Jordan. Once together, the three men put on ski masks, tied white t-shirts around their faces to obscure their identities, and directed Swain and Holcomb to drive to a separate location and wait until the robbery was complete. They also told Dyous that they would call her when they needed to be picked up.

Burch and Hendricks were sitting in their living room with two of their three children when Baker, Overstreet, and Jordan burst through the front door with their guns drawn. Baker went to the back of the house while Overstreet and Jordan held Burch and Hendricks at gunpoint and demanded money. Burch handed the men his wallet and said, "Don't do it in front [of] my kids." Overstreet ignored Burch's plea and fired three shots into Burch's legs while his two-year-old son, C. B., sat on his lap. The children began to scream, and Jordan went through Hendricks’ purse, removing three cell phones and a wallet. Jordan then fled through the front door while Overstreet and Baker exited the house through the back. As Hendricks was attempting to help Burch, she saw Overstreet walk back to the front door of the house. She testified that he "opened the door, stood at the door, and shot [Burch] some more." Overstreet then turned the weapon on Hendricks, but the gun did not fire. Overstreet stated that he "ran out of bullets" before he turned around and left.

The gang members, including Baker, fled the scene in their two getaway cars, with Jordan mocking Hendricks as she screamed for help. The group reconvened at Tillman's house and divided the stolen property amongst themselves. Overstreet wrapped a gun in a white t-shirt and threatened to murder anyone who talked about the robbery.

When officers arrived at the scene of the shooting, they found Burch dead on the couch. The medical examiner testified that Burch had died as a result of his numerous gunshot wounds. Officers located five 9mm bullets and eleven shell casings inside the house and sent the items to the GBI for further testing. A fingerprint lifted from the back door handle was later matched to Baker's thumb, and ballistics testing determined that the bullets and shell casings found at the scene were all fired from an Intertec 9mm pistol.³ Subsequent investigation also revealed that Baker and his co-defendants used some of the proceeds from the robbery to pay for a motel room in Moultrie and gas in Tifton, where Burch's credit card was found on the side of the road months later.

Phone records introduced at trial showed that Burch's stolen phone made several calls after his death to a bank where Burch had an account, and that Baker's phone and Overstreet's phone were in frequent contact with one another on the day of the murder. Finally, after Baker's arrest, he spoke with law enforcement officers. While he initially denied any involvement in the crimes, he eventually admitted to bringing a gun to Overstreet; kicking in the door of the Burch residence; witnessing Overstreet shoot Burch in the legs; and leaving the residence with Overstreet, after which Overstreet told Baker that he was going to go back into the house to kill Burch.

Baker claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions for the felony murder of Burch and the aggravated assault of Hendricks because the State failed to show that Baker was a party to the crimes when Overstreet re-entered the home to shoot Burch and attempt to shoot Hendricks. However, "criminal intent is a question for the jury, and it may be inferred from that person's conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime." Jones v. State , 292 Ga. 656, 658 (1) (a), 740 S.E.2d 590 (2013). Also, "[w]hile mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient evidence to convict one of being a party to a crime, criminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before, during, and after the offense." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Parks v. State , 304 Ga. 313, 315-316 (1) (a), 818 S.E.2d 502 (2018).

Here, the evidence presented at trial showed that Baker's phone was in frequent contact with Overstreet's phone on the day of the crimes, Baker agreed to take part in the robbery and home invasion, he rummaged through the home while his co-defendants held the victims at gunpoint, he continued to search the home after Overstreet fired the first three shots into Burch's legs, he heard Overstreet state that he was going back to the house to kill Burch, and he returned to Tillman's house with his co-defendants and participated in the division of the proceeds from the robbery. Finally, the evidence showed that the murder weapon was an Intratec 9mm pistol and that Baker brought such a weapon to be used in the robbery.

Based on the foregoing, a rational jury could conclude that Baker shared a common criminal intent with Overstreet, and the jury was authorized to find Baker guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the felony murder of Burch and the aggravated assault of Hendricks. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. See also OCGA § 16-2-20 (defining "party to a crime"); Lofton v. State , 309 Ga. 349, 353 (1), 846 S.E.2d 57 (2020) ("[A] shooting is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an armed robbery and thus a party to an armed robbery is culpable for felony murder if a fatal shooting occurs."); Jordan v. State , 307 Ga. 450, 452 (1), 836 S.E.2d 86 (2019) (concluding evidence was sufficient for Jordan's convictions for the malice murder of Burch and the aggravated assault of Hendricks based on a shared criminal intent with Overstreet).⁴

Baker also contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for the aggravated assault of C. B. because the two-year-old child could not testify at trial and because the State failed to present any evidence that C. B. was placed in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. We disagree.

A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he uses a deadly weapon to commit an act which places another [person] in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. Whether a victim has been placed in reasonable apprehension of injury is a question of fact, which may be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence. The presence of a deadly weapon would normally place a victim in reasonable apprehension of being injured violently.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Stewart v. State , 299 Ga. 622, 626 (2) (a), 791 S.E.2d 61 (2016). See also Bostic v. State ...