Knighton v. State

310 Ga. 586

853 S.E.2d 89

KNIGHTON

v.The STATE.

S20A1195

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: December 21, 2020

Brian Steel, for appellant.

Layla H. Zon, District Attorney, Bailey R. Simkoff, Candice L. Branche, Assistant District Attorneys; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Matthew B. Crowder, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Nahmias, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Quran Knighton was convicted of malice murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony in connection with the stabbing death of Markice Harris. Appellant contends that by twice interrupting his counsel's closing argument to provide instructions to the jury, the trial court committed plain error and denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the interruptions and instructions. We affirm.¹

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at Appellant's trial showed the following. In May 2016, Appellant, who was then 16 years old, was friends with Harris, who was 18. On May 19, however, they argued during a group text conversation after Appellant accused Harris of lying about where Harris lived. Following a protracted dispute through the group text messages, Harris sent a text saying that he and Appellant should have a fist fight.

Around 5:30 p.m., Harris sent Appellant a text saying that he was outside Appellant's house and wanted to fight. Two hours later, Appellant responded that he had been asleep, and Harris sent a text saying that they could meet tomorrow. Harris then sent Appellant texts saying, "no funny sh**"; "leave that dam[n] pocket knife in the house"; "You try sum funny I'll try sum funny"; and "I'm really [fixing to] just kill yo Sh** ... better hop[e] I can control myself." Appellant and Harris eventually agreed to meet later that night. Appellant then sent texts to a female username (which unbeknown to Appellant was actually used by Harris) saying that Harris was a liar. When Harris (through the female username) sent a text saying, "don't fight [Harris]," Appellant responded "Imma shoot him And his momma" and "We [fixing to] get ready to go to his house and light that Sh** up."

Briana Mosley, a 17- or 18-year-old relative who lived with Appellant, gave the following account in her trial testimony. Later that evening, she walked with Appellant to Harris's gated subdivision, where they waited for Harris outside the gate. When Harris arrived, he walked toward Appellant and punched him. Appellant then took off his jacket and started fighting with Harris. They fell to the ground, where Harris began punching Appellant and banging his head against the ground. Mosley tried to intervene, and one of Harris's neighbors who was driving out of the subdivision stopped his car and asked if Mosley needed help.² Appellant and Harris stopped fighting, stood up, and began to walk away from each other, and the neighbor drove away.

Appellant then told Mosley that he needed to get his jacket, and as he walked back toward Harris, Harris said something and they began to fight again. Mosley got out her cell phone to call for help; when she looked up, she saw that Harris had what she thought was a pocket knife. Appellant and Mosley tried to take the knife away from Harris. As Appellant wrested it away, Mosley's hand was sliced. Appellant then pushed Mosley out of the way and began slashing the knife at Harris. Harris said to Mosley, "You got stabbed, too," before he ran a few steps and fell to the ground. As Appellant fled, Mosley saw that Harris was not responsive. She called her grandfather on her cell phone and ran to her house after he told her to go there to call the police. Appellant arrived at the house about five minutes after Mosley; he then threatened to kill himself with a kitchen knife, which she took away from him.

Another family member called 911, and responding officers and medical personnel soon arrived at Appellant's house. Appellant came out with his hands up, and Mosley led the responders to Harris, who had died from stab wounds. Officers searched the scene of the fight and Appellant's house for the knife used to kill Harris, but it was never recovered.

A responding officer observed that Appellant had scrapes and bruises but no significant injuries. When the officer asked Appellant if he was injured, he replied only that he "had some bruises and scrapes." Medical responders then checked him over and cleared him to be transported to the sheriff's office. A few hours later, an investigator took photos of Appellant's injuries, which included several scrapes and some bruises and swelling, but Appellant did not report any stab wounds and the investigator did not observe any stab wounds or any significant amount of blood on Appellant.

Investigators interviewed Mosley that night. She told them that she saw Harris with the knife first; that she did not know whether it belonged to Appellant or Harris; and that she said to Appellant after the stabbing, "I have to tell on you." The next morning, Mosley met with two probation officers in connection with an unrelated case. She told the officers that after Harris repeatedly banged Appellant's head on the ground during the fight, she and Appellant went back to their house, where Appellant got a knife and then returned to the subdivision's entrance to confront Harris.³

The medical examiner who performed Harris's autopsy testified that he had several incised (cutting) wounds: one on the back of his head that penetrated his skull; one on his back; two on the left side of his chest; and one on his finger, which the examiner characterized as a defensive wound. Harris also had four stab wounds: one on the right side of his face; one on his chest that perforated his heart; and two on the right side of his body, one of which punctured his right lung. In addition, he had abrasions on his hands, right shoulder, back, and knees. The medical examiner concluded that the blade of the knife used to stab Harris was at least five-and-a-half inches long.

Appellant testified, claiming that he stabbed Harris in self-defense. He gave the following account of the day of the incident. He agreed to meet Harris but did not believe that they were actually going to fight. When Harris arrived, he punched Appellant and they began fighting; after the neighbor spoke to them, they stopped fighting and Appellant turned to walk home; but when he went back to get his jacket, Harris hit him. Appellant then saw that Harris was holding a "pocket knife," which Appellant recognized because he had seen Harris buy it sometime earlier. Harris tried to stab Appellant, who was scared and believed that Harris was going to kill him. Appellant pulled the knife away from Harris, who was still trying to fight him, and the next thing he remembered was "going crazy" and Harris walking away. Appellant dropped the knife and ran straight home, where he threatened to kill himself with a kitchen knife.⁴ Appellant claimed that on the day after he was arrested, he discovered that he had a stab wound on his side. He also claimed that he did not own a knife, and Mosley testified that she had never seen Appellant carrying a knife.

Appellant does not challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Nevertheless, in accordance with this Court's waning practice in murder cases, we have reviewed the record and conclude that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to reject Appellant's claim that he killed Harris in self-defense and to instead find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also Shaw v. State , 292 Ga. 871, 872, 742 S.E.2d 707 (2013) (" ‘[I]ssues of witness credibility and justification are for the jury to decide, and the jury is free to reject a defendant's claim that he acted in self-defense.’ " (citation omitted)).⁵

2. Shortly after beginning his closing argument, Appellant's counsel said:

This case, as I sort of mentioned in the beginning boils down to one thing: Do you believe from the evidence that [Appellant] brought this knife to the fight and attacked Mr. Harris with it, or do you believe that Mr. Harris brought the knife and in the fight [Appellant] took it away from him? You might think that well, maybe he did, but maybe is not enough. The State has to prove, the State has to prove that [Appellant] brought the knife to the fight and it was his knife.

The trial court interjected, "Counsel, that's simply not true," and asked the lawyers to approach the bench. The bench conference was not transcribed. When it concluded, the court addressed the jury:

Let me say what I said to them up here. At the moment of the stabbing the issue is formed who did the stabbing; secondly, was [it] justified who did the stabbing under the laws of self defense. There will be other laws I give you about other things, so his statement that if you found that the victim brought the knife to the fight that ends your determination is what I was saying is not accurate. It's at the time of the stabbing those two things I told you; is that clear to everybody? Okay. You may proceed.

Appellant's counsel resumed his closing argument, clarifying that "[i]f you ... find that [Appellant] had to take the knife away from him, Mr. Harris[,] to protect and save his life, you would have to acquit." Counsel proceeded to argue that Mosley was credible and that the probation officers were not credible and then said:

They have got to show, they got to somehow show that my client, it wasn't self defense, that he had a knife, you know, when I said a minute ago it turns on who brought the

...