Westmoreland v. State; Williams v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and denial of motions for new trial for Amos Westmoreland and John Edgar Williams, who were convicted of felony murder and related offenses arising from a police pursuit following burglaries. The court held that the homicide occurred within the res gestae of the burglary because it occurred during continuous flight from the crime scene, and it rejected challenges concerning sufficiency of the evidence, pursuit policy evidence, severance, hearsay, prosecutorial argument, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. A homicide committed during continuous flight from the scene of a burglary remains within the res gestae of the underlying felony until the perpetrators reach a place of seeming security or are no longer pursued. Because the police continuously pursued the station wagon from the burglary area through the fatal collision, the evidence supported Westmoreland's felony-murder conviction.
2. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to reject the police pursuit as an intervening cause and to find Westmoreland guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under OCGA § 40-6-6(d)(2), an officer's pursuit is not a proximate or contributing proximate cause of injury or death caused by a fleeing suspect unless the officer acted with reckless disregard for proper law-enforcement procedures, and reckless disregard alone does not establish causation.
3. Westmoreland waived his challenge to the restriction on cross-examination by abandoning the questioning after the objection was sustained and failing to make a contemporaneous objection or proffer the desired questions.
4. Westmoreland failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel's decision not to introduce the pursuit policy was an informed strategic decision, and there was no reasonable probability that presenting the policy addendum would have changed the result.
5. The evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to infer Williams's participation and criminal intent from his presence, companionship, conduct before and after the offenses, possession of stolen property, alteration of his appearance, and flight.
6. Williams could be found guilty as a party to attempting to elude an officer because a passenger who flees with the driver after the vehicle is stopped may be chargeable as a party to the crime. The evidence also supported a finding that he aided and abetted the failure to secure the stolen television.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance because Williams failed to make the required threshold showing that Westmoreland would testify exculpatorily at a separate trial, and he did not demonstrate prejudice from the joint trial.
8. The trial court properly excluded Westmoreland's statement that Williams lacked knowledge of the burglary because OCGA § 24-3-5 permits conspirator declarations only against other conspirators and is not a vehicle for a conspirator to introduce exculpatory hearsay.
9. The remaining claims did not warrant reversal because the instructional claim and challenges to the closing argument were unpreserved, the challenged attorney decisions were reasonable strategy, and the photograph claim was inadequately specified for appellate review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Westmoreland's felony-murder conviction when the fatal collision occurred during flight from the burglary.
2. Whether the police pursuit was an intervening cause of the collision and whether the evidence established reckless disregard under OCGA § 40-6-6(d).
3. Whether the trial court improperly restricted Westmoreland's cross-examination concerning the county vehicle-pursuit policy.
4. Whether Westmoreland received ineffective assistance for failing to investigate or present the pursuit policy and its addendum.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Williams as a party to the crimes despite his status as a passenger.
6. Whether Williams could be convicted as a party to attempting to elude an officer and failing to secure a load.
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Williams's motion to sever.
8. Whether Westmoreland's hearsay statement exculpating Williams was admissible under Georgia's co-conspirator declaration statute.
9. Whether the grand-jury preliminary instruction improperly commented on the evidence.
10. Whether the prosecutor's victim-related closing argument required a new trial.
11. Whether Williams received ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to object to the closing argument and testimony concerning other burglaries.
12. Whether the trial court erred in admitting unspecified photographs.

Disposition

affirmed