Lanier v. State

310 Ga. 520

852 S.E.2d 509

LANIER

v.The STATE.

S20A1192

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: December 7, 2020

Earle J. Duncan III, for appellant.

Jacquelyn L. Johnson, District Attorney, Thomas E. Buscemi, John B. Johnson III, Assistant District Attorneys; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Matthew D. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Bethel, Justice.

Antonio Lanier appeals his convictions for malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting deaths of Auda and Gerald Anne Love.¹ Lanier contends that that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because it was based on his co-defendants’ uncorroborated testimony, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and that the trial court erred by admitting crime scene and autopsy photographs and by improperly excusing certain potential jurors. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial showed the following. Approximately one week before the shootings, Lanier and his girlfriend, Heather Tipton, discussed killing Tipton's mother, Gerald Ann Love, and stepfather, Auda Love, and stealing their money and guns. At the time of this discussion, Lanier's close friend and roommate, Lintay Beard, was present.

Around 7:00 a.m. on October 11, 2012, the day of the shootings, Tipton drove to Lanier's residence. While there, Lanier and Tipton attempted to recruit Beard to assist with their plan, but Beard refused. Beard then observed Lanier and Tipton leave the residence in Tipton's sister's yellow Volkswagen Beetle. Lanier and Tipton then drove to the Loves’ house and stayed there for several hours while the Loves were at work. Tipton then went to pick up Mrs. Love from work. When Tipton and Mrs. Love returned, Mrs. Love walked into her bedroom to change clothes while Tipton remained in another part of the house. Tipton then heard two gunshots. When she looked into Mrs. Love's room, she saw Lanier holding Mr. Love's pistol. Lanier pointed the pistol at Tipton, and then turned and continued shooting Mrs. Love in the master bathroom.

Sometime later that same day, Mr. Love returned home from work. He walked through the master bedroom into the master bathroom, where he saw Mrs. Love's body. Lanier, armed with Mr. Love's shotgun, followed Mr. Love into the bathroom and shot him. Lanier then retrieved a different gun and continued shooting Mr. Love.

To create the appearance that the Loves had been robbed, Lanier knocked over items in the bedroom. Lanier and Tipton also stole Mr. Love's wallet, Mrs. Love's checkbook and purse, and five of the Loves’ guns. They then left the house in Mrs. Love's vehicle and drove to Lanier's home where they picked up Beard. The three went to the bank together, and Tipton cashed a forged $300 check from Mrs. Love's checkbook. Afterward, the three checked into a hotel.

Later that day, Lanier and Beard drove to the home of their friend, Joey Perez, and asked him to store the guns they had stolen. Perez agreed. The next day, Lanier, Tipton, and Beard drove to a lake, where Lanier instructed Beard to throw Mrs. Love's purse into the water. At some point, Lanier also told Beard that he had shot the Loves.

When Mr. Love did not appear for work on October 12, his supervisor called his cell phone multiple times but received no answer. The supervisor drove to Mr. Love's home and found the front door open and the home in disarray. He then called 911.

Law enforcement officers found the Loves’ deceased bodies on their bathroom floor and the yellow Volkswagen in the driveway. Police also found a number of spent shell casings from several different types of guns inside the home, including a .22-caliber, a .380, and a .40-caliber, as well as from a 12-gauge shotgun. Autopsy results revealed that Mr. Love sustained 31 injuries, including shotgun wounds to his face and shoulder and a number of other gunshot wounds to his arm, back, abdomen, chest, thigh, and buttocks. Mrs. Love sustained 15 injuries, including gunshot wounds to her chest, abdomen, and legs.

Tipton eventually confessed to her involvement in the shootings and reported Lanier's and Beard's involvement to law enforcement officers. Beard later showed officers where he had disposed of the purse, and it was recovered along with Mr. Love's wallet, Mrs. Love's checkbook, and shell casings. Additionally, officers recovered four firearms from Perez's home and determined that three of them had fired shells consistent with some of those found at the Loves’ home. Investigators also found Mr. Love's blood on Lanier's pants, and a store surveillance video shows that Lanier was wearing those pants on the day of the shooting. Investigators also recovered several of the Loves’ credit cards from Lanier and Beard's bedroom.

2. Lanier first argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions because it was based on the uncorroborated testimony of his co-defendants, Tipton and Beard. We conclude that Lanier was not convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of a single accomplice and that the evidence was legally sufficient.

(a) Under Georgia law, in felony cases where the only witness is an accomplice to the crimes, that witness's testimony alone is insufficient to support a defendant's convictions. See OCGA § 24-14-8. When "evidence presented at trial could support a finding that a witness acted as an accomplice, it is for the jury to determine whether the witness acted in such a capacity." Doyle v. State , 307 Ga. 609, 612 (2) (a), 837 S.E.2d 833 (2020). In this case, the jury heard evidence that authorized it to determine that both Tipton and Beard acted as accomplices with respect to one or more of the crimes the jury found Lanier to have committed.

Even if we assume that the jury determined that both Tipton and Beard were accomplices, there was legally adequate evidence to corroborate their respective testimony.

Although OCGA § 24-14-8 provides that corroboration is required to support a guilty verdict in felony cases where the only witness is an accomplice, only slight evidence of corroboration is required. The necessary corroboration may consist entirely of circumstantial evidence.... The evidence need not be sufficient in and of itself to warrant a conviction, so long as it is independent of the accomplice's testimony and directly connects the defendant to the crime or leads to the inference of guilt. The sufficiency of the corroboration is a matter for the jury to decide.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Raines v. State , 304 Ga. 582, 588 (2) (a), 820 S.E.2d 679 (2018). Further, "it is well established that where, as here, more than one accomplice testifies at trial, the testimony of one accomplice may be corroborated by the testimony of the other[ ]." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ramirez v. State , 294 Ga. 440, 442, 754 S.E.2d 325 (2014).

Here, Tipton and Beard substantially corroborated each other's testimony about the crimes. Tipton testified that she and Lanier planned to rob and kill the Loves, that she observed Lanier shoot the victims, and that she and Lanier stole their belongings. Beard testified that he was present when Lanier and Tipton initially discussed robbing and killing the Loves, that they attempted to recruit him on the day of the shootings, that Lanier subsequently confessed to shooting the Loves, and that Beard assisted Lanier in getting rid of the stolen guns and Mrs. Love's purse.

Other evidence corroborated both Beard's and Tipton's testimony. Perez confirmed that Lanier and Beard had asked him to store the guns that were found at his home – three of which were determined to have fired the shell casings found at the Loves’ home. In addition, investigators found Mr. Love's blood on Lanier's pants and recovered the Loves’ credit cards from his and Beard's room. In all, the testimony of Tipton and Beard was adequately corroborated and thus satisfies the requirements of OCGA § 24-14-8. See Ramirez , 294 Ga. at 442, 754 S.E.2d 325.

(b) To the extent that Lanier argues that the evidence against him was insufficient as a matter of due process, we have also reviewed the record and determined that the evidence, as summarized above, was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Lanier guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also Brown v. State , 302 Ga. 454, 456 (1) (b), 807 S.E.2d 369 (2017) ("It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence." (citation and punctuation omitted)).

3. Lanier next argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to pursue a multiple-shooter defense theory and a theory that Tipton and her sister stood to benefit financially from the Loves’ death. He also argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the case, failing to ask certain questions of witnesses at trial, and failing to request funds for an investigator and an expert witness.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance resulted in prejudice to the defendant. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668, 687-696, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ; Wesley v. State , 286 Ga. 355, 356 (3), 689 S.E.2d 280 (2010). To satisfy the deficiency prong, a defendant must demonstrate that his attorney "performed at trial in an objectively unreasonable way considering all the circumstances and in light of prevailing professional norms." Romer v. State , 293 Ga. 339, 344 (3), 745 S.E.2d 637 (2013) ; see also Strickland , ...