Beamon v. State

314 Ga. 798

879 S.E.2d 457

BEAMON

v.The STATE.

S22A1037

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: October 4, 2022

Debra Kay Jefferson, P.O. Box 1473, Lawrenceville Georgia 30046, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Parisia Faith Sarfarazi, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square SW, Atlanta Georgia 30334, Deborah D. Wellborn, A.D.A., C. Lance Cross, A.D.A., Sherry Boston, District Attorney, DeKalb County District Attorney's Office, 556 North McDonough Street, Suite 700, Decatur Georgia 30030, for Appellee.

Bethel, Justice.

After a jury trial, Vernon Beamon was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting deaths of Sylvia Watson and Samuel White. Beamon appeals, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that his convictions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony should have merged.¹ We disagree with both contentions and affirm.

1. As recounted by this Court in Spencer v. State , 308 Ga. 656, 842 S.E.2d 845 (2020), the evidence presented at the joint jury trial showed as follows.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial shows that Spencer and ... Beamon were members of a criminal street gang known as the "Rolling 20s." On the morning of October 24, 2016, they went to a DeKalb County apartment complex, where Watson and White shared a residence. As Watson was returning home from a medical appointment, a surveillance video camera recorded her silver Honda Civic enter the complex, around the same time as Beamon's blue Ford Expedition. The same camera recorded the Civic leaving the complex about seven minutes later, but this time, the recording showed two male passengers with Watson, including a man wearing a sweatshirt in the back seat.

During the course of the next hour, Watson's bank card was used at four nearby ATMs. Surveillance cameras recorded the man in the sweatshirt attempting to use Watson's bank card at several of the ATMs. Watson's card was used at the fourth ATM at 10:54 a.m., and video surveillance recorded her car returning to her apartment complex at 11:22 a.m. About an hour later, the same camera recorded Beamon's Expedition leaving the complex.

That evening, the bodies of Watson and White were discovered in their apartment. Each of them had been shot in the head, and their home had been burglarized. Two .380 cartridge casings were found near their bodies.

A few days later, one of White's family members discovered a bank withdrawal receipt in the Civic that was dated the day of the murders. After the police were notified, they searched the Civic and found a green plastic cup in the back seat. A latent fingerprint on that cup was entered into AFIS (the Automated Fingerprint Identification System) and matched Spencer's fingerprints. Soon thereafter, police conducted a search of the apartment that served as the gang house for the "Rolling 20s." In addition to a large amount of gang paraphernalia, police officers discovered a Bryco .380 semiautomatic pistol that was later determined to have been the weapon used to kill Watson and White. Spencer was arrested at the gang house, and the sweatshirt he was wearing (which resembled the one depicted in the surveillance video recordings) tested positive for gunshot residue.

Beamon was arrested a few weeks later in Mississippi. Beamon told police officers that he "barely knew" Spencer, but phone records showed that they had contacted each other numerous times before and after the day of the murders. Finally, cell phone records placed Spencer's and Beamon's phones near Watson and White's apartment and the various ATMs (as well as at the gang house) on the day of the murders.

Id. at 656-657, 842 S.E.2d 845.

Data from Beamon's cell phone also showed that in the early morning hours after the murders, Beamon was searching for breaking news and viewed a story about a fatal double shooting in the area. When he was interviewed by police, Beamon said that he was staying at the gang house around the time of the murders but that he was with Vanita Cooper on the evening of October 24 and stayed with her until 1:00 p.m. the following day. However, Cooper testified that she did not see Beamon on October 24. Finally, a detective with knowledge of the gang testified that committing robberies and bringing money back to the gang house would give gang members status.

2. Beamon first argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions. More specifically, Beamon argues that the direct evidence in the case linked Spencer to the crimes instead of him and that the circumstantial evidence against him was insufficient because the State did not prove that he drove his SUV into the apartment complex or used his phone around the time of the murders. Beamon further argues that the State failed to establish that he otherwise participated in or was a party to the crimes; failed to prove that he had the specific intent to commit murder or to enter the victims’ apartment, or that the murders were committed with the requisite malice; and failed to establish that he participated in the alleged crimes to further the gang's purpose.

We disagree.²

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 S.E.2d 696 (2018) (citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 318-319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). "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 S.E.2d 461 (2022).

Further, "[e]very person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime." OCGA § 16-2-20 (a).

A party to a crime is one who intentionally aids or abets the commission of the crime, or intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime .... Whether a person is a party to a crime may be inferred from that person's presence, companionship, and conduct before, during, and after the crime.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State , 304 Ga. 658, 661 (1), 821 S.E.2d 351 (2018). "Whether a defendant was a party to a crime is a question for the fact-finder." Coggins v. State , 275 Ga. 479, 480 (1), 569 S.E.2d 505 (2002).

As a matter of Georgia statutory law, "[t]o warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused." OCGA § 24-14-6. "Not every hypothesis is reasonable, and the evidence does not have to exclude every conceivable inference or hypothesis; it need rule out only those that are reasonable." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cochran v. State , 305 Ga. 827, 829 (1), 828 S.E.2d 338 (2019). Whether alternative hypotheses are reasonable, however, is usually a question for the jury, and this Court will not disturb the jury's finding unless it is insufficient as a matter of law. See Graves v. State , 306 Ga. 485, 487 (1), 831 S.E.2d 747 (2019).

Beamon argues that the State did not introduce physical evidence from the crime scene that directly linked him to the murders. However, that does not mean that the evidence presented was insufficient. "[A]lthough the State is required to prove its case with competent evidence, there is no requirement that it prove its case with any particular sort of evidence." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Rich v. State , 307 Ga. 757, 759 (1) (a), 838 S.E.2d 255 (2020). See also Cochran , 305 Ga. at 830 (1), 828 S.E.2d 338 (same). Further, to the extent Beamon's assertion of error amounts to an attack on the strength or credibility of the circumstantial evidence against him, it is well settled that "it is the role of the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the resolution of such conflicts adversely to the defendant does not render the evidence insufficient." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Graham v. State , 301 Ga. 675, 677 (1), 804 S.E.2d 113 (2017). The alleged faults with the evidence go to its weight, and Beamon's argument "is based on nothing more than his disagreement with the ... determinations made by the jury" about how to reasonably weigh the evidence. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Spencer , 308 Ga. at 658, 842 S.E.2d 845.

Moreover, even though there was no direct evidence of Beamon's guilt, the circumstantial evidence presented at trial allowed the jury to infer that Beamon was a party to the crimes committed. In particular, the evidence showed that Beamon and Spencer were active members of the same gang – the "Rolling 20s" – and that on the morning of October 24, Beamon's SUV entered the victims’ complex around the same time that Watson was returning home. A few minutes later, Watson's vehicle left the complex with two male passengers — one of whom was later determined to be Spencer. Watson's bank card was then used at several ATMs before her car returned to the complex. Beamon's car then left the complex about an hour later. Watson and White's bodies were discovered later that evening in their burglarized apartment. Cell phone records placed Beamon's phone near the victims’ apartment, the various...