310 Ga. 94 FINAL COPY
S20A1128. COATES v. THE STATE.
MCMILLIAN, Justice.
Appellant Horace E. Coates appeals his convictions for malice
murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of
Adrian Brooks and aggravated assault of Senchael Clements.1 In his
sole enumeration of error on appeal, Coates contends that the
1 The crimes occurred on July 3, 2014. On January 9, 2015, a Newton
County grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against Coates and Abdul Williams for malice murder (Count 1); two counts of felony murder predicated on armed robbery and on aggravated assault (Counts 2 and 3); armed robbery (Count 4); aggravated assault of Brooks (Count 5); aggravated assault of Clements (Count 6); and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Counts 7 and 8). Coates’s first jury trial in August 2016 ended in a mistrial. At his second jury trial held from March 13 to 15, 2017, Coates was convicted on all charges. Following a hearing on April 13, 2017, Coates was sentenced to serve life in prison for malice murder, another life sentence for armed robbery to run consecutively, twenty years for aggravated assault of Clements to run concurrently, and five years each for the two possession counts to run consecutively to Count 1 but concurrently to each other and Count 4. The felony murder counts were vacated by operation of law, and the remaining aggravated assault count merged into Count 1. On May 12, 2017, Coates filed a motion for new trial, which he amended through new counsel on May 16, 2018, and which was denied by the trial court on September 24, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the trial court granted Coates an out-of-time appeal. Coates then timely filed a notice of appeal, and the case was docketed to the August 2020 term of this Court and submitted for a decision on the briefs. evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions. We
affirm for the reasons below.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the
evidence presented at trial showed that Brooks resided with his
girlfriend Ebony Etheridge and her minor son. On the evening of
July 3, 2014, Clements, who worked for Brooks doing odd jobs in
exchange for marijuana, walked to Brooks’s home. On his way over,
Clements saw Abdul Williams, Coates, and a third man later
identified as “Stunner,” driving in a white car around the
neighborhood. Clements knew Coates and Williams and had seen
them at Brooks’s residence on prior occasions. Clements testified
that Coates, Williams, and Stunner were at Brooks’s residence when
he arrived, left when Clements came in, and then quickly returned.
When they knocked upon their return, Brooks asked Clements to let
them in. Once inside, Coates asked for 45 grams of “loud,” which
Clements testified he understood as a higher quality, more
expensive form of marijuana. Brooks said he did not have that
amount but offered a smaller amount. After Coates smelled it, he
2 accused Brooks of again giving him bad marijuana. Brooks
responded that he had never sold Coates bad marijuana and put
away the proffered drugs.
According to Clements, Coates then said, “give it up” and “you
know what time it is.” Simultaneously, Coates and Williams drew
guns and pointed them at Brooks. Stunner also drew a gun and
ordered Clements to the ground while Williams stuffed his pockets
with drugs located on the table in front of Brooks. Brooks and Coates
began scuffling. Clements heard two gunshots and believed
Williams fired a third shot. Coates and Stunner grabbed more drugs
before fleeing the scene in a white four-door car with Williams.
Williams testified that he and Coates were close friends.2 On
the day of the crimes, he called Coates for a ride home and was
picked up by Coates and two men he knew only as Stunner and “Big
Eyes” in a white four-door sedan rented by Stunner. Later, he,
2 Coates and Williams were initially tried together, but their cases were
severed days before the second trial started. On the day before that trial, Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and two counts of aggravated assault. 3 Coates, and Stunner entered Brooks’s home while Big Eyes stayed
in the car. Williams testified that after Brooks did not give Coates
the requested amount of marijuana, Coates got up as if he was going
to leave but instead suddenly pulled a butcher knife from his pocket.
Brooks tried to run, but Coates grabbed him. Stunner shot his
weapon twice, causing Williams to run for the door. According to
Williams, Coates had no firearm, Brooks was unarmed, and
Clements was balled up on the ground, unarmed, after the first shot.
Williams noted that Coates wore a bulletproof vest that day, which
was not typical. Coates, Williams, Stunner, and Big Eyes then fled
in the white car. Williams denied having a gun or stealing drugs
from Brooks but testified that he saw Brooks’s black drawstring bag
of drugs in the car between Coates’s legs. While in the car, Coates
threatened Williams to keep him from talking about the crime and
told Williams that he would likely only serve two years in jail
because he was not actually involved in the crime.
Etheridge testified that two nights before the shooting, she
overheard Brooks and Coates arguing over whether Brooks would
4 continue to purchase midgrade marijuana exclusively from Coates.
On the day before the shooting, Coates and Williams came to her
home attempting to get Brooks to come outside, but Brooks refused.
Then, on the evening of the crimes, while she and her son were in
the bedroom, they heard yelling and two gunshots 15 seconds apart.
Shortly thereafter, Etheridge saw a white car speed out of her
driveway. When she discovered Brooks had been shot, Brooks told
her not to call 911 because he had an outstanding arrest warrant,
but Etheridge went to the home of her next-door neighbor to call 911.
The neighbor testified that he heard two gunshots and that when he
went to see about Brooks, he found Brooks lying on the floor with
blood pooled around him, face down and unresponsive but still
breathing. Etheridge and Clements hid the remainder of the drugs
that had been left in the open and a nonoperational shotgun before
the police arrived. Etheridge noticed that drugs from the table and
the black drawstring bag that Brooks normally used to store drugs
were missing.
After the police arrived at the scene, Clements described a
5 white four-door sedan and the appearances of the three males
involved in the shooting, two of whom he knew as “Big Dreads” and
“Little Dreads.” Clements also provided an address for where they
might be located. Shirley Delamar, a neighbor who was familiar
with Coates and Williams, described the two men to police,
explained that Coates drove a white car with tinted windows, and
provided Williams’s phone number. On November 20, 2014,
Clements identified Coates from a photo lineup as “Big Dreads,” and
Delamar identified Coates as the man she knew as “Big Dreads” or
“Unc.” Delamar testified at trial that she spoke with Williams on the
phone on the night of the murder when he called to ask if she had
heard anything although Williams did not explicitly bring up the
murder.
Investigators found Brooks with $133 in his hand and $834 in
his pants pocket. They located a sandwich bag of marijuana in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
310 Ga. 94 FINAL COPY
S20A1128. COATES v. THE STATE.
MCMILLIAN, Justice.
Appellant Horace E. Coates appeals his convictions for malice
murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of
Adrian Brooks and aggravated assault of Senchael Clements.1 In his
sole enumeration of error on appeal, Coates contends that the
1 The crimes occurred on July 3, 2014. On January 9, 2015, a Newton
County grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against Coates and Abdul Williams for malice murder (Count 1); two counts of felony murder predicated on armed robbery and on aggravated assault (Counts 2 and 3); armed robbery (Count 4); aggravated assault of Brooks (Count 5); aggravated assault of Clements (Count 6); and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Counts 7 and 8). Coates’s first jury trial in August 2016 ended in a mistrial. At his second jury trial held from March 13 to 15, 2017, Coates was convicted on all charges. Following a hearing on April 13, 2017, Coates was sentenced to serve life in prison for malice murder, another life sentence for armed robbery to run consecutively, twenty years for aggravated assault of Clements to run concurrently, and five years each for the two possession counts to run consecutively to Count 1 but concurrently to each other and Count 4. The felony murder counts were vacated by operation of law, and the remaining aggravated assault count merged into Count 1. On May 12, 2017, Coates filed a motion for new trial, which he amended through new counsel on May 16, 2018, and which was denied by the trial court on September 24, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the trial court granted Coates an out-of-time appeal. Coates then timely filed a notice of appeal, and the case was docketed to the August 2020 term of this Court and submitted for a decision on the briefs. evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions. We
affirm for the reasons below.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the
evidence presented at trial showed that Brooks resided with his
girlfriend Ebony Etheridge and her minor son. On the evening of
July 3, 2014, Clements, who worked for Brooks doing odd jobs in
exchange for marijuana, walked to Brooks’s home. On his way over,
Clements saw Abdul Williams, Coates, and a third man later
identified as “Stunner,” driving in a white car around the
neighborhood. Clements knew Coates and Williams and had seen
them at Brooks’s residence on prior occasions. Clements testified
that Coates, Williams, and Stunner were at Brooks’s residence when
he arrived, left when Clements came in, and then quickly returned.
When they knocked upon their return, Brooks asked Clements to let
them in. Once inside, Coates asked for 45 grams of “loud,” which
Clements testified he understood as a higher quality, more
expensive form of marijuana. Brooks said he did not have that
amount but offered a smaller amount. After Coates smelled it, he
2 accused Brooks of again giving him bad marijuana. Brooks
responded that he had never sold Coates bad marijuana and put
away the proffered drugs.
According to Clements, Coates then said, “give it up” and “you
know what time it is.” Simultaneously, Coates and Williams drew
guns and pointed them at Brooks. Stunner also drew a gun and
ordered Clements to the ground while Williams stuffed his pockets
with drugs located on the table in front of Brooks. Brooks and Coates
began scuffling. Clements heard two gunshots and believed
Williams fired a third shot. Coates and Stunner grabbed more drugs
before fleeing the scene in a white four-door car with Williams.
Williams testified that he and Coates were close friends.2 On
the day of the crimes, he called Coates for a ride home and was
picked up by Coates and two men he knew only as Stunner and “Big
Eyes” in a white four-door sedan rented by Stunner. Later, he,
2 Coates and Williams were initially tried together, but their cases were
severed days before the second trial started. On the day before that trial, Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and two counts of aggravated assault. 3 Coates, and Stunner entered Brooks’s home while Big Eyes stayed
in the car. Williams testified that after Brooks did not give Coates
the requested amount of marijuana, Coates got up as if he was going
to leave but instead suddenly pulled a butcher knife from his pocket.
Brooks tried to run, but Coates grabbed him. Stunner shot his
weapon twice, causing Williams to run for the door. According to
Williams, Coates had no firearm, Brooks was unarmed, and
Clements was balled up on the ground, unarmed, after the first shot.
Williams noted that Coates wore a bulletproof vest that day, which
was not typical. Coates, Williams, Stunner, and Big Eyes then fled
in the white car. Williams denied having a gun or stealing drugs
from Brooks but testified that he saw Brooks’s black drawstring bag
of drugs in the car between Coates’s legs. While in the car, Coates
threatened Williams to keep him from talking about the crime and
told Williams that he would likely only serve two years in jail
because he was not actually involved in the crime.
Etheridge testified that two nights before the shooting, she
overheard Brooks and Coates arguing over whether Brooks would
4 continue to purchase midgrade marijuana exclusively from Coates.
On the day before the shooting, Coates and Williams came to her
home attempting to get Brooks to come outside, but Brooks refused.
Then, on the evening of the crimes, while she and her son were in
the bedroom, they heard yelling and two gunshots 15 seconds apart.
Shortly thereafter, Etheridge saw a white car speed out of her
driveway. When she discovered Brooks had been shot, Brooks told
her not to call 911 because he had an outstanding arrest warrant,
but Etheridge went to the home of her next-door neighbor to call 911.
The neighbor testified that he heard two gunshots and that when he
went to see about Brooks, he found Brooks lying on the floor with
blood pooled around him, face down and unresponsive but still
breathing. Etheridge and Clements hid the remainder of the drugs
that had been left in the open and a nonoperational shotgun before
the police arrived. Etheridge noticed that drugs from the table and
the black drawstring bag that Brooks normally used to store drugs
were missing.
After the police arrived at the scene, Clements described a
5 white four-door sedan and the appearances of the three males
involved in the shooting, two of whom he knew as “Big Dreads” and
“Little Dreads.” Clements also provided an address for where they
might be located. Shirley Delamar, a neighbor who was familiar
with Coates and Williams, described the two men to police,
explained that Coates drove a white car with tinted windows, and
provided Williams’s phone number. On November 20, 2014,
Clements identified Coates from a photo lineup as “Big Dreads,” and
Delamar identified Coates as the man she knew as “Big Dreads” or
“Unc.” Delamar testified at trial that she spoke with Williams on the
phone on the night of the murder when he called to ask if she had
heard anything although Williams did not explicitly bring up the
murder.
Investigators found Brooks with $133 in his hand and $834 in
his pants pocket. They located a sandwich bag of marijuana in
Brooks’s driveway, a .45-caliber shell casing on the floor inside the
door of the residence, and another .45-caliber shell casing in the
living room. Investigators also identified a bullet hole in the front
6 wall of the residence and a bullet that went through the wall and
into a wooden post on the front porch. The medical examiner
removed bullet fragments from Brooks and concluded that Brooks
died from a single gunshot wound to the right flank area of his torso.
A GBI firearms examiner testified that the recovered shell casings,
bullet in the wooden post, and bullet fragments were fired from the
same firearm, a Glock .45 automatic pistol. Under two pseudonyms,
Coates fled the country and later returned to Florida, where he was
arrested on November 6, 2015, and found with a .45-caliber
magazine and rounds.
Coates contends that this evidence was insufficient to support
his convictions as a matter of constitutional due process. When
evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, this Court views the evidence
presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks
whether any 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 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). We conclude
7 that the evidence was sufficient.3
Coates contends that he cannot be guilty of malice murder
because neither witness to the shooting asserted that Coates was
the assailant who shot Brooks and because the State could not
provide any evidence that he intended to kill Brooks.
A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. The State, of course, must prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of malice murder, as malice incorporates the intent to kill. Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof, while malice is implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. The malice necessary to establish malice murder may be formed in an instant, as long as it is present at the time of the killing. It is for a jury to determine from all the facts and circumstances whether a killing is intentional and malicious.
3 Coates’s claims include a challenge to the evidence to support his convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault of Brooks, but because the aggravated assault count merged into the malice murder conviction, and the felony murder count was vacated by operation of law, Coates was not sentenced on either of those counts. Accordingly, we do not address these claims. See Welch v. State, 306 Ga. 470, 473 (1) n.5 (831 SE2d 761) (2019). 8 Benton v. State, 305 Ga. 242, 244 (1) (a) (824 SE2d 322) (2019)
(citations and punctuation omitted).
Moreover, under OCGA § 16-2-20 (a), “[e]very person concerned
in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged
with and convicted of commission of the crime.” Conviction as a
party to a crime requires proof that the defendant “shared a common
criminal intent with the direct perpetrators” of the crimes. Fleming
v. State, 306 Ga. 240, 247 (3) (b) (830 SE2d 129) (2019). A jury may
infer a common criminal intent from the defendant’s presence,
companionship, and conduct with other perpetrators before, during,
and after the crimes. See Powell v. State, 307 Ga. 96, 99 (1) (834
SE2d 822) (2019).
The evidence shows that Coates came back to Brooks’s home
after visiting him that day, pulled a gun on Brooks and told Brooks
to “give it up” after Brooks refused to sell him drugs, restrained
Brooks when Brooks attempted to run for the door, and left Brooks
to die after he was shot. It also shows that Coates fled the country
immediately after the crimes occurred. See Rowland v. State, 306
9 Ga. 59, 65 (3) n.4 (829 SE2d 81) (2019) (Evidence of “flight, . . .
assumption of a false name, and related conduct is admissible as
evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.” (citation
and punctuation omitted)). Although the witnesses diverged in their
testimonies on whether it was Coates or one of his associates who
actually shot Brooks, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to
conclude that Coates committed malice murder either as the shooter
or as a party to the crime. See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 296 Ga. 485,
488 (1) (769 SE2d 82) (2015) (jury was authorized to find beyond a
reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of malice murder as a
party to the crime when appellant entered store with intent to
commit an armed robbery and exhorted shooter to hurry up).
Similarly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the
jury to find that Coates was guilty of aggravated assault against
Clements even though Clements claimed that one of the other men
with Coates held him at gunpoint while Coates and Brooks fought
and Williams stole drugs. OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2) does not require
that Coates point a deadly weapon directly at Clements to be guilty
10 of aggravated assault against him, “but merely that the defendant
use the deadly weapon in such manner as to place another in
reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.”
Green v. State, 304 Ga. 385, 388 (1) (a) (818 SE2d 535) (2018)
(citation and punctuation omitted). The evidence was sufficient to
show that Clements was in reasonable apprehension of immediately
receiving a violent injury when Coates pulled a gun on Brooks, and
in any event, the jury was also authorized to find Coates guilty of
aggravated assault of Clements as a party to the crime. See
Herrington v. State, 300 Ga. 149, 150 (1) (b) (794 SE2d 145) (2016)
(“[A] defendant need not personally possess a weapon or fire a shot
to be found guilty as a party to an aggravated assault, if the evidence
shows that he intentionally aided or abetted in the commission of
the crime.” (citation and punctuation omitted)).
Coates also argues that the State failed to prove the armed
robbery charge under OCGA § 16-8-41 (a) because no witnesses
claimed that Coates, rather than Williams or Stunner, stole from
Brooks. However, Clements testified that Coates and Stunner stole
11 drugs from the table before they fled, that Williams stole drugs from
the table while Coates and Stunner held Brooks and Clements at
gunpoint, and that Coates said “you know what time it is” and told
Brooks to “give it up.” This testimony is sufficient to sustain Coates’s
armed robbery conviction both directly and as a party to the crime.
See Boyd v. State, 306 Ga. 204, 208 (1) (a) (830 SE2d 160) (2019)
(affirming conviction for armed robbery where defendant told
victims “ ‘y’all already know what time it is’” and to “ ‘give it up’”).
In addition, Etheridge testified that drugs were missing after
Coates, Williams, and Stunner left the scene of the murder, a bag of
marijuana was found on the ground where Coates ran between the
house and the car, and Williams testified that he saw Brooks’s black
drawstring bag of drugs in the car between Coates’s legs. This
additional circumstantial evidence supports Clements’s direct
testimony. See McKie v. State, 306 Ga. 111, 115 (829 SE2d 376)
(2019) (Jurors are “entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the
evidence based on their own common-sense understanding of the
world.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). Thus, we conclude that
12 the evidence was also sufficient to enable the jury to find Coates
guilty of armed robbery.
Finally, Coates argues that even in the light most favorable to
the jury’s verdict, the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
convictions because there were only two witnesses who testified
about the crimes and their stories conflicted substantially. More
specifically, Coates argues that all of the crimes for which he was
convicted require the use of a firearm, but only one witness claimed
that Coates had a gun, the other witness said that Coates had a
butcher knife rather than a gun, and no gun was ever found.
Moreover, Coates argues that both witnesses’ credibility was
questionable. Williams testified for the State after pleading guilty
and receiving a lesser sentence, and Clements admitted giving police
a false name and false statements, being diagnosed with mental
illness characterized by hallucinations, being a convicted felon,
using drugs at the time of the shooting, and not being on his
medication at trial.
However, our review must leave “to the jury the resolution of
13 conflicts or consistencies in the evidence, credibility of witnesses,
and reasonable inferences to be made from the evidence.” Yarn v.
State, 305 Ga. 421, 423 (2) (826 SE2d 1) (2019); see also Vega v.
State, 285 Ga. 32, 33 (1) (673 SE2d 223) (2009) (“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)). Though only Clements testified that Coates
had a gun, “the testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient
to establish a fact.” Rich v. State, 307 Ga. 757, 759 (1) (a) (838 SE2d
255) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). The jury was entitled
to believe that Coates wielded a gun rather than a knife based on
the evidence presented at trial; thus, the evidence was sufficient to
support Coates’s convictions for possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Warren, J., not participating.
14 Decided October 5, 2020.
Murder. Newton Superior Court. Before Judge Johnson. Jennifer F. Arndt, Anthony S. Carter, for appellant. Layla H. Zon, District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Matthew B. Crowder, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.