Goodman v. State

313 Ga. 762

873 S.E.2d 150

GOODMAN

v.The STATE.

S22A0306

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: May 17, 2022

Eric C. Crawford, Crawford & Boyle, LLC, 306 S. Hammond Drive, Monroe, Georgia 30655, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Eric Christopher Peters, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Daniel Brent Cochran, A.D.A., Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, P.O. Box 111, Monticello, Georgia 31064, Tuttle Wright Barksdale, III, District Attorney, Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, P.O. Box 1209, Gray, Georgia 31032, for Appellee.

Peterson, Justice.

Jemerius Goodman was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Jyleel Solomon and the aggravated assaults of four other people.¹ On appeal, Goodman argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his convictions and the trial court erred in admitting statements he made after invoking his right to remain silent. But the evidence was sufficient, and Goodman never unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent. We reject Goodman's arguments and affirm, although we sua sponte vacate Goodman's void sentence for obstructing his own prosecution and remand the case for resentencing on that count.

1. Background

(a) Solomon is killed during an exchange of gunfire.

Viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdicts, after nightfall on November 6, 2017, five friends — Keonna Lewis, her boyfriend Brian Hitchcock, Elijawon May, and brothers Malik ("Malik") and DeMarquis Murray — were socializing outside the Murrays’ home. A white car passed by. The occupants were Brandon Walls, Solomon, Goodman, and Malik Taylor ("Taylor"). Taylor was driving, and Goodman was in the front passenger seat.

Gunfire erupted. The first shots came from the white car. Solomon was firing an AK-47 rifle from one of the rear seats. He was hit in the face by a shot fired from the yard by Malik and pronounced dead later that night. Lewis saw someone shooting across the car while hanging out the front passenger side. Lewis was shot in the pelvic area. Walls told the police he "did not see Goodman firing ..., but felt that he had," as he heard shots to his right.

Solomon later received medical attention and, while he was still conscious, tried to talk to first responders, but was largely unintelligible. He was pronounced dead soon after arriving at the hospital. His autopsy revealed that he had died of the gunshot wound, with a bullet fracturing his skull and fragmenting in his brain. The medical examiner testified that "[a]ny volitional or conscious movement or effort," including talking, would have ceased upon Solomon's being shot, but cardiac and respiratory activity may have continued until death.

(b) The guns are discarded.

Walls told the police that Goodman took the firearms. Walls testified that he gave Goodman two firearms when Goodman said, "I need to duck all the fires," which Walls took to mean that Goodman would discard the weapons. Walls told the police where they could find Goodman and that Goodman likely had the guns. Police searched Goodman's mother's car trunk and found a 9mm handgun in a book bag, as well as a .38-caliber revolver. The revolver's serial number had been filed off. Ballistic examination revealed that the 9mm handgun fired both the shot that hit Lewis and a casing that was recovered from Taylor's pocket. Police found an AK-47 at Solomon's home.

(c) Goodman writes an incriminating jail note.

In jail, Taylor received a note urging him to accept responsibility for one charge in exchange for the sender admitting to another. It read that "Brant"² could incriminate the note's author, Brant would meet with consequences for doing so, Taylor should deny that the author was present during the shooting, there was no need for "both of us" to go down, and "[w]e started dis." The note also gave the author's "story," which was that he was dropped off when Solomon was picked up and later received the guns when a bag holding them was thrown out of a car window. The note was signed, "Madd Maxx." Goodman had a Facebook profile in the name of "Mad Max" and had that name tattooed on his hands, and Walls at one point told the police that someone he knew from Facebook as "Mad Max" got out of the car and ran with the guns. A jail dorm mate and acquaintance of Goodman read the note and recognized the handwriting as Goodman's, having seen him write an earlier message. The State also introduced jail paperwork together with testimony that the handwriting on them was Goodman's.

(d) Goodman's police statement is admitted against him.

Goodman was interviewed separately by two different detectives, Robert Butch and T. J. Hargrove. An incriminating statement Goodman made to Detective Hargrove was admitted at trial.³ Goodman's counsel stipulated that Goodman was in custody for both interviews and validly waived his Miranda rights.⁴ The only issue with the statement that Goodman raised in the trial court and raises here is whether he invoked his right to remain silent while talking to Detective Butch, making his subsequent statement to Detective Hargrove inadmissible.

In the midst of a heated and far-ranging discussion with Detective Butch about Goodman's sense of futility in working with the police, the following exchange took place:

GOODMAN: You gotta allow people to be who they are. You feel me. You can't change that. So ain't no use in trying—

DETECTIVE BUTCH: I can't change anybody. I can't change anybody. I can only change me.

GOODMAN: So, like, I already told you, you're wasting your time talking to me. I'm not going to change my mind about anything I said. I'm not—I don't want to talk to you. I don't want to talk to you. I don't want your paper. I don't give a f**k about this s**t. Like, bro, I don't wanna think about my partner being dead, something's gotta be done!

DETECTIVE BUTCH: Something's gotta be done about it.

GOODMAN: But not what you talking about.

DETECTIVE BUTCH: ... help me do something about it.

GOODMAN: Bro, I don't need y'all help, bro.

DETECTIVE BUTCH: Sure you do. Then why do you b**ch about us not doing our jobs?

Five minutes later, the two exchanged the following words (with emphasis added):

DETECTIVE BUTCH: Yeah! Malik told us he carries a tool. Malik carries—he told us he carries a tool.

GOODMAN: Right, look—

DETECTIVE BUTCH: Your partner always carries a tool.

GOODMAN: If he told you, [laughing] bro, he's just flexing bro, like, I mean, like, real life.

DETECTIVE BUTCH: Kind of what you're doing.

GOODMAN: On my soul, like, he's—

DETECTIVE BUTCH: Kind of like what you're doing.

GOODMAN: —he's always flexin’. He's gonna flex.

DETECTIVE BUTCH: Oh, like you are.

GOODMAN: I ain't, no, [unintelligible]. Bro, like I said, ‘bout what's going on, bro, is what's going on. Like, I don't know about that. I don't want to talk , and then, like, what's going to happen, it's going to happen regardless. Alright? Y'all know what's going on. Do y'all’s job.

DETECTIVE BUTCH: We've been trying, but you ain't helping.

GOODMAN: Bro, I'm not going to help you do your job.

DETECTIVE BUTCH: You just want—

GOODMAN: I don't need y'all to go help me do my job. You feel? Unless y'all gonna take those badges off and ride with me—

(Emphasis added.) The two argued for another minute, and then Detective Butch left.

The trial court found that Goodman did not unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent; rather, "It sounded like it was more of a frustration between him and the topic and the detective because they did get rather heated back and forth. And ... despite the fact that he kept saying that [he did not want to talk], he also kept talking." The court therefore admitted Goodman's subsequent statement to Detective Hargrove.

In that statement, Goodman claimed not to have been present during the shooting and denied seeing any guns in the car beforehand. He admitted that he drove his mother's car regularly. Pressed as to the ownership of the guns found in it, Goodman denied that they were his mother's or sister's. Detective Hargrove said they had to be Goodman's. Goodman responded, "I ain't going to say that, but, you can say that. You can say that." He then claimed that he received the guns when a car drove by and they were thrown out of the window in his book bag as someone yelled, "Get rid of them." Goodman said there was blood in the bag.

Goodman was convicted after arguing that he was not involved in the shooting and that he acted in self-defense even if he was.

2. Analysis

Goodman now contests the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's admission of his police statement. His arguments are unavailing, but we vacate an illegal sentence as to one count.

(a) There was sufficient evidence of Goodman's guilt.

Goodman first argues that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient as to all crimes except using an altered gun.⁵ He asserts that there was insufficient proof that he fired any shots or was a party to the shooting, the jail note was not unambiguous evidence of guilt, neither Walls nor Ford was credible, and the medical examiner's testimony that Solomon would have immediately lost consciousness contradicts the first responders’ testimony that Solomon tried to speak with them.

We reject Goodman's arguments. In considering a claim that evidence was insufficient in violation of his federal due process right under Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), "our review is limited to an evaluation of whether the trial evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted." Howard v. State , 307 Ga. 284, 286, 835 S.E.2d 605 (2019). We "put aside any...