Kim v. State

847 S.E.2d 546, 309 Ga. 612
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 24, 2020
DocketS20A0865
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 847 S.E.2d 546 (Kim v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kim v. State, 847 S.E.2d 546, 309 Ga. 612 (Ga. 2020).

Opinion

FINAL COPY 309 Ga. 612

S20A0865. KIM v. THE STATE.

MELTON, Chief Justice.

Following a bench trial, Appellant Ki Song Kim appeals his

convictions for murder and other offenses in connection with the

stabbing deaths of Young Chan Choi (“Mr. Choi”) and Sun Hee Choi

(“Mrs. Choi”).1 In his sole enumeration of error, Kim claims that the

1 The crimes occurred on July 27, 2013. On October 23, 2013, a Gwinnett County grand jury indicted Kim for the following crimes: malice murder of Mr. Choi by stabbing him in the heart (Count 1), malice murder of Mrs. Choi by cutting her throat (Count 2), felony murder of Mr. Choi predicated on aggravated assault with an edged weapon (Count 3), felony murder of Mrs. Choi predicated on aggravated assault with an edged weapon (Count 4), aggravated assault of Mr. Choi for stabbing him in the heart with an edged weapon (Count 5), aggravated assault of Mrs. Choi for cutting her throat with an edged weapon (Count 6), aggravated assault of Mr. Choi for beating him with a rod-like instrument (Count 7), aggravated assault of Mrs. Choi for beating her with a rod-like instrument (Count 8), aggravated battery of Mr. Choi for rendering his lungs useless by stabbing (Count 9), aggravated battery of Mrs. Choi for rendering her lungs useless by stabbing (Count 10), and two counts of possession of a knife during the commission of a felony (Counts 11 and 12). The State initially filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, which the State later agreed to withdraw in exchange for Kim’s waiver of a jury trial and stipulation to certain evidentiary matters. At the conclusion of the three- day bench trial from January 23 to January 25, 2019, the trial court found Kim guilty of all counts. The trial court sentenced Kim to life without the possibility evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his

convictions. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the

evidence was sufficient to sustain Kim’s convictions. However, we

also conclude that we must vacate Kim’s sentences as to Counts 9

and 10 of his indictment in order to correct sentencing errors that

harm Kim.

1. Kim contends that the evidence presented at trial was

insufficient to sustain his convictions because the evidence of his

guilt was entirely circumstantial and did not rule out the reasonable

hypothesis consistent with his innocence that he put forth at trial.

We disagree.

It is well settled that, when evaluating the sufficiency of

of parole on each of the malice murder counts. The felony murder counts were vacated by operation of law. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 372 (4) (434 SE2d 479) (1993). Counts 5 and 6 merged with the malice murder counts for sentencing purposes. The trial court also imposed consecutive 20-year sentences for each of Counts 7, 8, 9, and 10, as well as two consecutive five- year sentences for Counts 11 and 12. Kim filed a motion for new trial on February 23, 2018, which he amended on June 19, 2019. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion as amended on September 13, 2019. Kim timely filed a notice of appeal on October 1, 2019, and the case was docketed to the April 2020 term of this Court and submitted for a decision on the briefs. evidence, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis omitted.) Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560)

(1979). “This Court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in

testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to

the verdict, with deference to the [factfinder’s] assessment of the

weight and credibility of the evidence.” (Citation and punctuation

omitted.) Hayes v. State, 292 Ga. 506, 506 (739 SE2d 313) (2013).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

verdicts, the evidence presented at trial showed that, several years

before the crimes, Kim had worked for the Chois’ restaurant supply

business as a salesman. A couple of weeks before their deaths, the

Chois re-hired Kim as a salesman and loaned him $6,000 to

purchase a car and pay some bills.

On the night of July 27, 2013, the Chois’ next-door neighbor

saw a car back into the Chois’ driveway. Two men got out of the vehicle and approached the Chois’ front door. The older of the two

was wearing a baseball cap and carrying a box of apples. The

neighbor saw Mrs. Choi answer the door and invite the men inside.

A short while later, the neighbor heard “squealing” that she initially

thought was an animal, but realized might be her neighbors. From

her driveway and through the Chois’ partially open blinds, the

neighbor could see a shadow making striking motions. The neighbor

attempted to call Mrs. Choi by phone, but she did not answer. The

neighbor, who did not speak English, called her sister and brother-

in-law for help. When they arrived, her brother-in-law looked

through the Chois’ window and saw Mr. Choi lying in a pool of blood.

The brother-in-law called 911 at 9:48 p.m. The neighbor estimated

that 15 to 20 minutes elapsed between the time she saw the shadow

through the blinds and her brother-in-law calling 911.

When the police arrived, they found the Chois dead inside their

home. Mr. Choi was lying in the foyer with his head blocking the

door to the basement. He had suffered 16 stab wounds from a knife

that was at least seven-and-a-half inches long, and had multiple contusions from a baton-like object on his head, back, abdomen, and

side. The medical examiner determined that three of the stab

wounds punctured Mr. Choi’s heart, causing his death, and that the

blunt force trauma to his head and torso had also contributed to his

death.

Mrs. Choi was discovered on the kitchen floor. She had

multiple stab wounds on her back and shoulder from a knife that

was at least three inches long, her throat had been cut, and she also

had blunt force injuries to her head, rib fractures on both sides of

her body, and bruising on her hands and arms. The medical

examiner determined that Mrs. Choi’s death was caused by the knife

wound to her throat.

Officers found a box of apples on the dining room table and a

bloody fingerprint, later identified as belonging to Kim, on the tassel

of the blinds in the dining room. The first and second floor of the

home were methodically searched, and, despite the large volume of

blood present in the areas where the Chois were found, no blood was

found on the second floor. The basement appeared undisturbed, and the Chois’ son later found $100,000 in cash hidden underneath a

coffee table in the basement.

Knowing that it was common for the perpetrator of a stabbing

to injure himself, the lead detective notified local hospitals to look

out for people seeking treatment for knife injuries. The following

morning, officers received a call from personnel at Gwinnett Medical

Center that Kim had arrived with substantial knife wounds to his

fingers and hand. Surveillance video showed Kim and a younger

male in the waiting room of the medical center. The police arrived

and interviewed Kim, who reported that he had been robbed the

previous evening in the parking lot of a shopping center and cut his

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

BOSTIC v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Supreme Court of Georgia, 2025
Fuller v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia, 2025
Bowdery v. State
321 Ga. 890 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2025)
Grant v. State
904 S.E.2d 338 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
847 S.E.2d 546, 309 Ga. 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kim-v-state-ga-2020.