Ward v. State

1

WARD v. THE STATE

DEWBERRY v. THE STATE

Nos. S23A0139, S23A0140

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 16, 2023

PINSON, Justice.

Appellants Michael Ward and Frederick Dewberry were convicted of malice murder and felony murder in connection with the stabbing death of Antonio Wiley and aggravated assault in connection with the stabbing of Wydreicus Denison.^[1] On appeal Ward contends that (1) the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21-that is, the general grounds. But the evidence of Ward's guilt here, including eyewitness testimony, was sufficient, and Ward has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to grant a new trial on the general grounds. So we affirm Ward's convictions.

In his appeal, Dewberry contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for directed verdict of acquittal on the murder and aggravated assault charges; (2) allowing a "heavy police presence" in the courtroom in violation of his right to a fair trial; (3) leaving a defense witness in visible restraints; and (4) not declaring a mistrial after the prosecutor conferred with a witness, in violation of the rule of sequestration. Each claim fails. As with Ward, the evidence was sufficient to support Dewberry's convictions, so the trial court did not err in denying his motion for directed verdict. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the police presence in the courtroom under the circumstances here-a trial for murder and aggravated assault occurring inside a prison and involving rival gangs, where all three defendants were maximum security inmates, and two had substantial prison disciplinary records. Finally, the rule of sequestration did not forbid the prosecutor from speaking privately with a witness under the circumstances here. So we also affirm Dewberry's convictions.

1. On August 28, 2011, two inmates were stabbed at Augusta State Medical Prison. Wydreicus Denison was stabbed multiple times around 7:15 a.m.; he survived his injuries. Later that afternoon, Antonio Wiley was stabbed at least 65 times, and he died as a result of blood loss. The evidence at trial viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, showed the following.

With respect to the stabbing of Denison, Denison himself ultimately testified that Ward and Dewberry were among his attackers. On direct examination, Denison, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, testified that he thought he remembered who stabbed him, but that he did not see any of those people in the courtroom. The prosecutor then impeached him with several prior statements, which showed Denison initially denying knowing who stabbed him, but then identifying Ward and Dewberry as two of his attackers. On cross examination, Denison said he wrote a letter around three months after the incident to "[e]verybody who had any control over the institution" "[b]ecause I lied. I lied on those guys right there." He claimed that he was "coerced" by the GBI to make his earlier statements and said "I don't know who stabbed me, really, to be honest." After further questioning, however, Denison said,

Y'all clients, they know what's going on, man, you know. I'm really tired of dealing with this, you know, they know what they did, you know.... And the statement I just made about they didn't do nothing, I was scared, I'm still scared, you know.... I go back to prison, then what? Then what? But they did stab me, yeah, them two right there, they stabbed me.

As for the stabbing of Wiley, Department of Corrections Sergeant Latonia King, who was on duty on the day of the stabbings, said it happened between 1:00 and 2:30 p.m. in the yard outside one of the prison dorms, when between 75 and 100 inmates were outside. Officers tried to get the inmates to return to the dorm after the stabbing, and King assisted, but the inmates "were really rowdy, upset, yelling." King noticed Wiley lying across the doorway leading into the dorm, barely breathing. Inmates surrounding Wiley told King "we're gonna kill y'all officers if y'all don't help our homeboy. We're gonna F one of y'all up today." As she tried to move Wiley to a gurney, the inmates, including Dewberry, started groping her.

Dante Morris, another inmate at the time, explained that he was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the prison, but three gangs were also represented there: the Atlanta Mob and Gangster Disciples, who were affiliated in the prison, and the Bloods, who were not affiliated with any other gang there. Wiley, who had recently transferred from Hays State Prison, was a Blood; Henry was a Mob member; and Ward and Dewberry were Gangster Disciples.

Morris testified that someone "put out a hit on [Wiley]" from Hays State Prison over a $50 cell-phone-battery debt. When out in the yard on the day of the stabbing, Morris saw a lot of Gangster Disciple and Mob members around Wiley, leading him out the door. They led him around a corner to an area that was not easily visible, and "once they start talking, Rump^[2] pulled out a knife and he start to stick him." "After Rump, you had Big Maine^[3]-you had Young Money,^[4] Rump, Big Maine, Little Nate, Bankhead.^[5] There was more of them but-and Fortie." He estimated that eight to eleven people were stabbing Wiley, but he "could just see the ones running up and sticking him, then the main four that stayed that's obviously constantly sticking him."

Once all the inmates were moved back into the dorm, Morris noticed some inmates "tried to set [clothes] on fire," explaining that it was standard practice to change clothes after an incident of violence if the clothes were bloody.^[6] He also explained that different people had different roles in a stabbing like this one: "If they're a leader or they just a flunky, somebody that they just tell what to do or whatever. Some of them watch for the officers. Some keep other inmates away from whatever is fixing to go on," and some "will give [those involved] something clean to put on." Months after the stabbing, Morris identified Henry, Dewberry, and Ward for GBI officials investigating the stabbing.

Case No. S23A0139

2. Ward contends that the evidence was not sufficient as a matter of constitutional due process to support any of his three convictions. He says the State failed to establish that he possessed a sharp weapon, that he caused any stab wounds, that he caused any of Wiley's fatal stab wounds, or that he was part of a plan or conspiracy to stab Wiley. Ward also argues that, as to the murder counts, three defense witnesses "exonerat[ed]" him when each testified that he was not involved,^[7] while only one witness (Morris) claims to have seen Ward involved as "part of" Wiley's stabbing. As for Denison, he says, only Denison claims that Ward attacked him, and Denison's story changed constantly.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the verdicts to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979). In this review, we do not "weigh the evidence on appeal or resolve conflicts in trial testimony." Byers v. State, 311 Ga. 259, 266 (2) (857 S.E.2d 447) (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). And "[t]he testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact." Carter v. State, 314 Ga. 317, 320 (2) (b) (877 S.E.2d 170) (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence here was sufficient to support Ward's convictions. For the murder charge, the State did not need to show that Ward caused a fatal stab wound: it was enough to prove that he was a party to the crime. See OCGA § 16-2-20 (a) ("Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime."). To be convicted as a party to a crime, the defendant must have "shared a common criminal intent with the direct perpetrators of the crime," Coates v. State, 310 Ga. 94, 98 (849 S.E.2d 435) (2020), which "may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before, during and after the offense," Powell v. State, 307 Ga. 96, 99 (1) (834 S.E.2d 822) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, Morris clearly identified Ward as one of the parties involved in Wiley's stabbing, and Morris "could just see the ones running up and sticking [Wiley], then the main four that stayed that's obviously constantly sticking him." Morris also supplied a motive, explaining that Ward's gang was executing the "hit" put out on Wiley for his battery debt from Hays State Prison. The jury could infer from Ward's presence as one of the stabbers that he shared a common criminal intent with the other attackers to murder Wiley.

As for Ward's argument that three of his witnesses "exonerated" him, the jury was authorized to not believe the defense witnesses' testimony that Ward was not involved in Wiley's stabbing. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 314 Ga. 351, 354-355 (877 S.E.2d 174) (2022) (jury was entitled to discredit the defendant's testimony).

Similarly although Denison's willingness to name his attackers waxed and waned, the jury was authorized to credit his prior statements and cross-examination testimony naming Ward- particularly in light of his stated fear of retaliation in prison. See Watkins v. State, 313 Ga. 573, 576-577 (2) (872 S.E.2d 293) (2022) (explaining that the jury can consider prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence and reject portions of those witnesses'...