Summary
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Antoine Wimes’s convictions for felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The court held that the State had not undisclosedly promised its key witness favorable treatment and was not required to correct the witness’s apparently honest but inaccurate testimony about the specific criminal charges he faced.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State violated Brady and Giglio by failing to disclose an agreement or promise allegedly made to prosecution witness Christopher James in exchange for his testimony.
- Whether the State violated due process under Napue by failing to correct James's testimony that he was charged with robbery rather than armed robbery.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Wimes's convictions.
Holdings
- The State did not violate due process because the record supported the trial court's finding that no agreement or promise existed between the State and James in exchange for his testimony. The subsequent disposition of James's charges, standing alone, did not establish an undisclosed deal.
- The State was not required to correct James's apparently honest but inaccurate testimony because Wimes did not show that James knew he faced an armed-robbery charge or that the inaccurate testimony was material to his credibility.
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a rational jury to find Wimes guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key quotations
“[T]he state is under a duty to reveal any agreement, even an informal one, with a witness concerning criminal charges pending against that witness, and a failure to disclose such an agreement constitutes a violation of the due process requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963).” (at 362)
“The length of the prison time that a witness faces if convicted of pending criminal charges may be relevant to impeaching the witness, to the extent that it indicates the strength of his motivation to testify favorably for the State, although the trial court retains wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination in this area.” (at 363)
“The question is not what charges and sentences James actually faced, but what he believed about his predicament, because “ ‘witnesses cannot be influenced by matters about which they are unaware.’ ”” (at 364)
Factual background
Wimes was convicted in connection with the shooting death of a convenience-store employee during an attempted robbery. The State presented evidence that Wimes's friends, Jerrod Ford and Christopher James, supplied incriminating statements or testimony, while Wimes presented an alibi. James was facing robbery and aggravated-assault charges when he testified, but he and his attorney, as well as the lead prosecutor, testified that no deal or promise had been made in exchange for his testimony. James testified that he faced robbery charges rather than armed-robbery charges, apparently because he did not know that an armed-robbery charge was pending.
Procedural history
A Fulton County grand jury indicted Wimes for felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Following a jury trial from August 24 through September 1, 2010, he was convicted of all charges; the trial court imposed life imprisonment for felony murder and five consecutive years for the firearm conviction, and merged the aggravated-assault conviction. The trial court denied Wimes's amended motion for new trial after an evidentiary hearing, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.