Summary
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of Atu Lewis and Jacque Dominique Clark for murder and related crimes arising from a Clayton County home invasion and shooting. The court held that accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated, evidence concerning consciousness of guilt was admissible, and no discovery violation required a mistrial. The court also rejected Clark’s challenges to the admission of evidence and the prosecutor’s opening presentation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence sufficiently corroborated accomplice Brower's testimony to support Lewis's and Clark's convictions.
- Whether testimony that Lewis discussed killing Ford improperly placed his character in evidence.
- Whether the State's failure to disclose during discovery information learned from Brower warranted exclusion of the testimony or a mistrial.
- Whether the absence of a transcript of the charge conference required appellate relief.
- Whether admission of a photograph of Lewis's hand was reversible error when Clark failed to object.
- Whether the trial court erred by declining to declare a mistrial sua sponte after photographs were briefly displayed during the prosecutor's opening statement.
Holdings
- Slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participant in the criminal act sufficiently corroborated Brower's accomplice testimony. Lewis's blood and palm print on the getaway vehicle, physical evidence of the struggle, eyewitness testimony about dreadlocks, and his changed appearance after the crime provided sufficient corroboration and evidence for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Testimony that Lewis discussed killing Ford was admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, even if it incidentally placed his character in evidence.
- No discovery violation warranted a mistrial because Brower's information had not been reduced to a writing or otherwise recorded, and the trial court permitted defense counsel to interview Brower before the testimony proceeded.
- The issue was not properly before the Supreme Court because any omission from the record was a matter for the trial court and Lewis did not pursue the issue there.
- Clark's challenge was not properly before the court because he did not object to admission of the photograph.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to declare a mistrial because it immediately stopped the use of the photographs, the photographs were later admitted without objection, and the jury was instructed that opening statements were not evidence.
Key quotations
“This Court has held that “slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participant in the criminal act is sufficient corroboration of the accomplice to support a verdict.”” (at 113)
“Any statement or conduct of a person, indicating a consciousness of guilt, where such person is, at the time or thereafter, charged with or suspected of crime, is admissible against him upon his trial for committing it.” (at 114)
“The decision to grant a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing that a mistrial is essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial.” (at 116)
Factual background
Lewis, Clark, Brower, and Ford planned and executed a home invasion to steal drugs and money from Troy Marine. Lewis shot Marine during a confrontation after the group entered the home, where Marine's three children were restrained at gunpoint. Physical evidence, witness testimony, admissions, and evidence that Lewis and Clark altered their dreadlocked hairstyles after the crime connected both appellants to the offenses.
Procedural history
A Clayton County grand jury indicted Lewis, Clark, and two other defendants in 2008. Lewis and Clark were tried together from June 16 through June 25, 2010; Lewis was convicted on all remaining counts, while Clark was acquitted of malice murder but convicted of the remaining counts. The trial court denied both defendants' motions for new trial in April 2012, and both appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which affirmed.