Hall v. State

901 S.E.2d 743

HALL

v.The STATE.

A24A0568

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 15, 2024

Lee William Fitzpatrick, Kennesaw, for Appellant.

Fani T. Willis, Atlanta, Mario Kladis, for Appellee.

Mercier, Chief Judge.

Following a jury trial, Vincent Ivory Hall appeals his convictions for aggravated assault, burglary, theft by taking, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and battery, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support a number of his convictions and that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence under the residual exception to the rule against hearsay.¹ For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

[1] It is well settled that,

[w]hen evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the proper standard for review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [An appellate 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.

Harper v. State, 298 Ga. 158, 158, 780 S.E.2d 308 (2015) (citations omitted).

Viewed in this light, the evidence presented at trial indicates that Hall had been in a romantic relationship with both Leandra Ashby and Skyla Hunt for several years, although Ashby did not know about Hall’s intimate relationship with Hunt. On April 20, 2016, Ashby discovered an Instagram photo of Hunt and Hall together and decided to message Hunt. In the ensuing text conversation, Ashby learned of Hunt’s relationship with Hall. Hunt also revealed to Ashby that, earlier that same day, Hall hit her in the head with a .45 caliber Glock handgun belonging to Hunt, put the gun against her head, and stated that he hoped she died.² After learning of Hall’s relationship with Hunt, Ashby confronted Hall, broke up with him, and began repeatedly asking Hall to return her house key. Hall did not comply.

After further conversations, Ashby and Hunt decided to meet in person, and they attended a party together on the night of April 23, 2016. While out, Ashby sent Hall a photo of herself and Hunt, and both women talked with Hall on the phone. Ashby asked Hall to return her house key, and Hunt requested the return of her .45 caliber Glock handgun, which Hall had taken. At 10:20 pm, Hall texted Hunt, "Come get your gun and tell [Ashby] to come get her keys," and around 11:30 PM, he texted Hunt, "[C]ome to me … now." In response, Hunt told Hall that she and Ashby would stop by his home following the party. At some point after mid-night, the women traveled to Hall’s home to retrieve Ashby’s key and Hunt’s gun, but Hall was not there. The women then decided to go back to Ashby’s home, where Hunt had left her car.

Unbeknownst to the women, Hall had stolen someone else’s car earlier that night and driven it to Ashby’s house,³ though he did not park in Ashby’s driveway or carport, where he normally parked. Armed with Hunt’s Glock, Hall entered Ashby’s house, went into a storage closet, and waited. Before arriving home, Ashby told Hunt she was "scared" that Hall might show up at any moment because he still had her key. As the women entered the house, Ashby heard her storage closet door open, and Hall suddenly emerged, pointing the Glock at the women and yelling, "So this is what y’all wanted[?]" As Hall approached Ashby with the Glock, she "flail[ed]" her arms and tried to get away from him. Hall then hit Ashby in the head with the gun, at which time Hunt intervened by pulling a .9 mm pistol from her purse and warning Hall not to touch Ashby.

Next, Hall snatched the .9 mm gun out of Hunt’s hand, fought with her, and slammed her head against a wall. After a momentary break in the fighting, Ashby commanded both Hall and Hunt to leave her home, and they complied. Hunt, however, forgot her purse inside the home, and Ashby allowed her to re-enter. Hall eventually followed, and he and Hunt began to fight again. During the following altercation, Hall continued to hold both guns, and the .9 mm fired, fatally shooting Hunt in the chest. Hall fled, but subsequently turned himself into police.

While in custody and waiting for trial, Hall communicated with Ashby, though he at- tempted to conceal it.⁴ In one letter to Ashby, Hall included a transcript of Ashby's statement to police immediately following the shooting and instructed her to explain any conflict between her favorable testimony at trial and her prior police interview by saying she was "afraid and angry" when she talked with the police. And, at trial, Ashby did, in fact, take issue with many aspects of her statement to police immediately after the shooting by testifying that she was "traumatized" at the time.

Based on this evidence, the jury found Hall guilty of the aggravated assault of Ashby, burglary, theft by taking, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony for each handgun, and the battery of Ashby.⁵ The jury found Hall not guilty of the murder of Hunt, and it deadlocked on the charges of felony murder and the aggravated assault of Hunt. Following the denial of a motion for new trial, Hall initiated the present appeal.

[2] 1. (a) Hall argues that, based on Ashby’s testimony at trial, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon upon Ashby.⁶ He is incorrect.⁷

In Count 5, Hall was indicted for committing aggravated assault "by aiming a deadly weapon, to wit: a handgun at, toward, and in her direction, thereby placing … Ashby in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving serious bodily injury[.]" And, in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence showed that Hall unexpectedly emerged from a storage closet pointing a handgun and yelling at Ashby and Hunt, thereby causing Ashby to flail her arms and attempt to get away. This evidence is sufficient to support Hall’s conviction. See Howard v. State, 288 Ga. 741, 742 (1), 707 S.E.2d 80 (2011) ("Testimony that the victims ran from the gunfire is sufficient evidence that [they were placed] in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury."). Hall's reliance on Ashby’s testimony at trial that was favorable to him does not change this result. Much of Ashby’s testimony at trial directly contradicted her previous statement to police given immediately following the shooting, and the jury was authorized to credit Ashby’s prior statement over her inconsistent testimony at trial. See Horne v. State, 333 Ga. App. 353, 357 (1) (b), 773 S.E.2d 467 (2015) ("The jury is the arbiter of credibility, and it was able to assess all of the evidence and determine whether the victim’s recantation was credible.").

[3] (b) Hall also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for burglary.⁸ Again, he is incorrect.

The indictment alleged that Hall committed burglary by entering Ashby’s home "without authority and with the intent to commit … Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon therein[.]" In the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that, after Ashby had broken up with Hall and had repeatedly asked for the return of her key, Hall let himself into Ashby’s home without permission (which Ashby had been scared he might do), waited in a closet for Ashby and Hall to return, and angrily confronted the women with Hunt’s Glock moments after the women entered the home. This evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. See Hewatt v. State, 216 Ga. App. 550, 551 (2), 455 S.E.2d 104 (1995) (finding that intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence).

(c) Hall further maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support his two convictions for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (one count for each handgun).⁹ We disagree.

In Count 9 of the indictment, Hall was charged with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony because he "did unlawfully have on and within arm's reach of accused's person a [.]9 millimeter caliber handgun during the commission of at least one of the following felonies: Murder, Felony Murder, Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and Burglary in the First Degree." In Count 10, he was indicted for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony for possession of the .45 caliber Glock handgun in an identical manner. In considering both of these indicted charges for sufficiency, it is important to note that the jury’s verdict gives no indication as to which predicate felony or felonies it considered when finding Hall guilty of each possession count. Therefore, sufficiency of any of the alleged underlying felonies might support the verdict.

[4] With regard to both counts of possession of a firearm, Hall first contends that neither could be premised on the underlying felonies of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon of Ashby or burglary, reiterating his previous argument that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for either of these predicate crimes. As discussed directly above, Hall’s insufficiency argument with regard to these predicate counts is misplaced. This, in turn, allows quick resolution of Hall’s sufficiency challenge to Count 10, as the evidence plainly indicates that Hall was in possession of the .45 caliber Glock handgun at the time that he committed both burglary and the aggravated assault of Ashby.

[5] Consideration of Count 9, possession of the .9 mm handgun, is slightly more complicated, however, because Hall did not take possession of that weapon until after his confrontation with Ashby and Hunt was underway. Even if we assume without deciding that, based on the wording of the indictment, burglary and the aggravated assault of Ashby could not be predicate felonies because Hall did not have the .9 mm handgun until he snatched it from Hunt after she tried to defend Ashby, we must still...