Henderson v. State

317 Ga. 66

891 S.E.2d 884

HENDERSON v. The STATE.

Mason v. The State.

S23A0559, S23A0720

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: August 21, 2023

Brian Vance Patterson, The Law Office of Brian V. Patterson, LLC, 320 East Clayton Street, Suite 412, Athens, Georgia 30601, for Appellant in S23A0559.

Jonathan O. Oden, The Office of the Appellate Defender, 270 Washington St. S.W., Suite 5198, Atlanta, Georgia 30334, David Allen Hoort, Georgia Public Defender Council, 270 Washington Street, Suite 5198, Atlanta, Georgia 30334, for Appellant in S23A0720.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Deborah D. Wellborn, A.D.A., Sherry Boston, District Attorney, Thomas L. Williams, DeKalb County District Attorney's Office, 556 North McDonough Street, Decatur, Georgia 30030, Elizabeth Rosenwasser, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capital Square, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Appellee.

Pinson, Justice.

After a joint trial, Demetre Mason and Frankland Henderson were convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting deaths of Sonia Williams and Shaniqua Camacho. ¹

On appeal, Mason contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions for malice murder, and that the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether evidence that, a month before the murders, Mason stole a handgun that was used in the shootings was admissible under Rule 403. But the evidence was sufficient as a matter of due process to sustain his convictions, and the trial court properly applied Rule 403 to the evidence that he stole the handgun. So we affirm Mason's convictions and sentence.

In a separate appeal, Henderson raises six claims. He contends that the admission at trial of Mason's out-of-court statement to police violated Henderson's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment; the trial court should have given an instruction limiting how the jury could consider Mason's out-of-court statement; the testimony of one witness for the prosecution, who he claimed was an accomplice, was insufficiently corroborated; the trial court should have excluded as hearsay testimony about statements from an associate of Henderson and Mason, because there was insufficient evidence to show that the statements were made in furtherance of a conspiracy so as to fall within a hearsay exception; the trial court abused its discretion in denying Henderson's motion to sever his case; and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting photos of Henderson making gang signs without proper authentication.

Each of Henderson's claims fails. Admitting Mason's out-of-court statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause under Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), because it did not, standing alone, directly implicate Henderson. See Pender v. State , 311 Ga. 98, 110-111 (2) (b), 856 S.E.2d 302 (2021).

It was not plain error to fail to give a limiting instruction about Mason's out-of-court statement, because the absence of the instruction is unlikely to have affected the outcome of the trial. No corroboration was needed for the testimony of the witness Henderson claims was an accomplice, because there was ample evidence from which the jury could find that she was not an accomplice. The out-of-court statements of Henderson's associate were properly admitted under the hearsay exception for statements in furtherance of a conspiracy because the evidence was sufficient to establish that Henderson and his associate conspired to commit the murders and to participate in a criminal street gang. The trial court was not required to sever Henderson's trial, because there was little possibility of confusing evidence or law, there were no antagonistic defenses, and the evidence admitted at the joint trial that might not have been admitted if Henderson was tried alone was not prejudicial enough to show a denial of due process. And, finally, the photos of Henderson making gang signs were not admitted in error because they were authenticated by a police investigator who was familiar with them.

1. Recounted in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence at trial showed the following.

(a) In May 2014, Mason and Henderson were living on Maypop Lane in DeKalb County with Michael Jenkins, Jaimee Harrell, Katrina Shardow, Malcolm Brown, Frederick Rosenau, and Brandi Singleton. All except Singleton were members of the Nine Trey Gangsters, a subset of the Bloods gang. Singleton was not a gang member, but she was familiar with the gang and was in a sexual relationship with Brown. The highest ranking gang member in the house was Rosenau, followed by Brown, followed by Harwell. Below Harwell were Mason, Henderson, and Jenkins, who were all of the same rank.

On the night of May 18 to 19, 2014, Mason brought his girlfriend, Williams, and Williams's friend, Camacho, to the house. Williams had been there once before, and she and Brown did not get along. On this occasion, Mason, Williams, Camacho, Singleton, Rosenau, and Brown all went to an upstairs bedroom. Brown asked Mason why he kept bringing Williams over, since Williams had "too much mouth." Brown began pulling at Williams's clothing, hair, and body. Williams objected and told Brown that he was "acting like a b***h." Brown replied, "Oh, I'm acting like a b***h." Brown then left the room and went downstairs. Mason tried to leave with Williams at that point, but Rosenau told him they "[weren't] going to leave like that."

Downstairs, Brown told Harwell and Shardow to "[g]o get" Williams. Brown then returned to the bedroom with Harwell and Shardow, along with Henderson and Jenkins. Harwell moved aggressively toward Williams and threatened her. Williams responded that Harwell "wasn't going to touch her." Harwell hit Williams in the face, and then Harwell and Shardow both began beating Williams. Brown encouraged the beating. Mason did not intervene.

After about ten minutes, Harwell and Shardow let Williams get up. Williams was "screaming and cursing" and asking Mason why he had not helped her. Harwell and Shardow then picked her up and dragged her down the stairs. Williams did not want to leave without her shoes and her purse, but Harwell and Shardow threw her out the front door. At that point, Camacho, Williams's friend, tried to retrieve Williams's belongings and to leave with Williams, but Harwell held onto Williams's purse. Camacho told everyone it was "nice to meet them" and was allowed to leave.

Outside the house, Williams had not left the property. She was pounding and kicking at the front door, screaming that she would "bring some GDs"—meaning Gangster Disciples, a gang that was not friendly with the Bloods—to "come and shoot up the place." Brown told Mason, "You need to control your b****h." Brown said that if Williams brought a group of Gangster Disciples to the house, there would be a problem. Eventually Williams stopped shouting and pounding on the door, and she and Camacho left.

Brown ordered Mason, Henderson, and Jenkins to go find the two women. Brown confirmed that the three were armed, and instructed them, "Make sure that y'all do what y'all need to do and make sure that [Mason] does what he need to do because he acting like he in love." The three men, all carrying guns, left in a car. Brown stayed back at the house, but he was in communication with the three while they were out, urging them to find Williams and Camacho and asking to be kept apprised of what Mason, in particular, was doing.

Five or ten minutes later, the three men returned. Henderson reported to Brown: "Yeah, we did that. They flatlined. It's over with." Brown asked several times if Henderson was sure that nobody would "come back to this door," and Henderson kept repeating that "they flatlined" and "it was over with."

Brown instructed everyone to delete any pictures they had with Williams on Instagram. Harwell and Shardow riffled through Williams's purse and then burned it. The following day, Harwell and Singleton threw away some of Williams's other belongings at an elementary school down the street.

(b) At 4:14 a.m. on May 19, 2014, Alyssia Smith, who lived near the house on Maypop Lane, was awakened by the sound of gunfire. Smith checked to make sure her children were safe and then went back to bed. The next morning, as she was walking to her car, Smith noticed two female bodies on the ground. Smith told her fiancé, and they called 911.

The responding officers identified the victims as Williams and Camacho. A medical examiner later determined that both women had died from multiple gunshot wounds. A .40-caliber bullet and a .38-caliber bullet were recovered from Williams's body. Officers also found seven spent Federal .40-caliber Smith & Wesson shell casings near the bodies.

Investigating officers obtained Williams's phone number from her family and requested her phone records. The records showed that on May 18 and May 19, Williams's phone was in contact multiple times with a phone number ending in -5686. Officers learned that the subscriber associated with the -5686 number was Mason. Officers also learned that on May 19—the day after the murders—the 5686 account was canceled and a new number was assigned to the same phone.

Mason became a suspect. On May 30, he was arrested at the Maypop Lane home. A search of the home revealed a red bandana, a red notebook containing a written oath, and a number of electronic devices, including Mason's phone. Officers then got a search warrant for Mason's phone and learned that Mason had exchanged a series of text messages on May 19 with someone named "Turk." Among those messages were an incoming text from Turk that read, "Who was it"; a reply from Mason's phone saying, "She had to go Blood. I bust that a**...