308 Ga. 327 FINAL COPY
S20A0232. SIMMONS v. THE STATE.
MELTON, Chief Justice.
Following a jury trial, Eric Simmons appeals his convictions
for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony.1 Simmons contends that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred
by not granting his motion for a mistrial following “emotional
outbursts” from the victim’s family and friends. For the reasons set
forth below, we affirm.
1. Simmons contends that the evidence presented at trial was
1 On January 29, 2016, a Lowndes County grand jury indicted Simmons
for felony murder predicated on aggravated assault (Count 1), aggravated assault (Count 2), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 3). Simmons’s trial commenced on February 6, 2017, and concluded on February 9, 2017. The jury found him guilty on all counts. The same day, the trial court sentenced Simmons to life in prison for count 1 and five consecutive years for Count 3. Count 2 merged with Count 1 for sentencing purposes. Simmons filed a motion for new trial on March 6, 2017, which was amended by new counsel on February 20, 2019. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion as amended on April 2, 2019. Simmons timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court. His appeal was docketed to the term of this Court beginning in December 2019 and submitted for a decision on the briefs. not sufficient to sustain his convictions because it was based upon
discredited witness testimony. When evaluating the sufficiency of
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.” (Citation and 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 jury’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).
Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that on the morning of
August 15, 2016, Damarriss Morrow and James Bushware were at
home playing video games with friends when Simmons’s stepdad, Terrell Hill, knocked on their door.2 Terrell wanted to speak to an
adult about his belief that Morrow was engaged in a sexual
relationship with Simmons’s twelve-year-old sister. No adult was
present, and after briefly speaking with Morrow, Terrell left.
Shortly thereafter, Demaria Hill arrived at the house along
with several more friends. Terrell returned to the house,
accompanied by Simmons, and spoke with Morrow about texting
Simmons’s sister. During the exchange that followed, Hill
intervened and told Terrell that the conversation “needs to stop
because it’s petty.” Simmons made a comment about Hill
disrespecting his father; Simmons then approached Hill, pointed a
.380 handgun at his head, and shot him in the forehead. Hill fell to
the ground, and Simmons and Terrell fled the scene.
Upon arrival, a patrol officer found Hill semiconscious in the
back seat of a car where a friend had moved him in an attempt to
transport him to the hospital. In response to the officer’s repeated
2 Simmons calls Terrell Hill his “stepdad”; however, Terrell Hill was actually the boyfriend of Simmons’s mother. We refer to him as “Terrell” to avoid confusion with the unrelated victim, Demaria Hill. inquiries as to who shot him, Hill replied that Simmons was the
shooter. Hill later died at the hospital. The medical examiner
concluded that Hill’s death was caused by a gunshot wound to the
head. A few days later, Simmons turned himself in at a police
station in Tampa, Florida. He told the police that he had shot Hill
in self-defense. However, no witness saw Hill with a gun or saw him
attempt to attack Simmons prior to the shooting.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the evidence was sufficient
to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Simmons
was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Shaw v.
State, 292 Ga. 871, 872 (1) (742 SE2d 707) (2013) (“[I]ssues of
witness credibility and justification are for the jury to decide, and
the jury is free to reject a defendant’s claim that he acted in self-
defense.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)).
2. Next, Simmons contends that the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial in response to
“emotional outbursts” of the victim’s family members and friends.
Simmons argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not take testimony from those present who observed the displays
of emotion, did not question the jurors about what they saw, and did
not give a curative instruction about the outbursts. We see no abuse
of discretion.
“Trial courts are vested with great discretion to grant or deny
mistrials because they are in the best possible position to determine
whether one is warranted.” Ragan v. State, 299 Ga. 828, 834 (3) (792
SE2d 342) (2016). “‘Measures to be taken as a result of
demonstrations and outbursts which occur during the course of a
trial are matters within the trial court’s discretion . . . .’” (Citation
omitted.) Green v. State, 300 Ga. 707, 710 (2) (797 SE2d 863) (2017).
“The decision [whether] to grant a mistrial . . . 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.” Jackson v. State, 292 Ga.
685, 689 (4) (740 SE2d 609) (2013).
The record shows that Simmons’s trial counsel moved for a
mistrial after a lunch break. He reported that jurors leaving for
lunch had passed the victim’s family members and friends in the hallway having “emotional outbursts.” Trial counsel proffered the
testimony of witnesses to the hallway outbursts. After listening to
counsel’s description of what had transpired, the trial court
determined that it did not need to hear from witnesses, and it denied
Simmons’s motion for a mistrial. The trial court determined that no
improper contact had been made with jurors and that merely
passing upset individuals in the hallway did not rise to the level of
prejudicing Simmons’s right to a fair trial.
The trial court’s conclusion was within its discretion. After
hearing trial counsel’s proffer of testimony regarding the emotional
outbursts of the victim’s family and friends, the trial court
determined that witness testimony was not necessary. The trial
court then considered whether the conduct described by counsel,
which consisted of a few people crying, with one person down on her
knees, had been so severe as to prejudice Simmons’s right to a fair
trial and determined that it had not. This was a proper exercise of
the court’s discretion. As for Simmons’s argument that the trial
court should have questioned the jurors to determine if they had been affected by the emotional displays, Simmons did not request
this, nor did he object to the trial court’s failure to do so.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
308 Ga. 327 FINAL COPY
S20A0232. SIMMONS v. THE STATE.
MELTON, Chief Justice.
Following a jury trial, Eric Simmons appeals his convictions
for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony.1 Simmons contends that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred
by not granting his motion for a mistrial following “emotional
outbursts” from the victim’s family and friends. For the reasons set
forth below, we affirm.
1. Simmons contends that the evidence presented at trial was
1 On January 29, 2016, a Lowndes County grand jury indicted Simmons
for felony murder predicated on aggravated assault (Count 1), aggravated assault (Count 2), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 3). Simmons’s trial commenced on February 6, 2017, and concluded on February 9, 2017. The jury found him guilty on all counts. The same day, the trial court sentenced Simmons to life in prison for count 1 and five consecutive years for Count 3. Count 2 merged with Count 1 for sentencing purposes. Simmons filed a motion for new trial on March 6, 2017, which was amended by new counsel on February 20, 2019. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion as amended on April 2, 2019. Simmons timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court. His appeal was docketed to the term of this Court beginning in December 2019 and submitted for a decision on the briefs. not sufficient to sustain his convictions because it was based upon
discredited witness testimony. When evaluating the sufficiency of
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.” (Citation and 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 jury’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).
Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that on the morning of
August 15, 2016, Damarriss Morrow and James Bushware were at
home playing video games with friends when Simmons’s stepdad, Terrell Hill, knocked on their door.2 Terrell wanted to speak to an
adult about his belief that Morrow was engaged in a sexual
relationship with Simmons’s twelve-year-old sister. No adult was
present, and after briefly speaking with Morrow, Terrell left.
Shortly thereafter, Demaria Hill arrived at the house along
with several more friends. Terrell returned to the house,
accompanied by Simmons, and spoke with Morrow about texting
Simmons’s sister. During the exchange that followed, Hill
intervened and told Terrell that the conversation “needs to stop
because it’s petty.” Simmons made a comment about Hill
disrespecting his father; Simmons then approached Hill, pointed a
.380 handgun at his head, and shot him in the forehead. Hill fell to
the ground, and Simmons and Terrell fled the scene.
Upon arrival, a patrol officer found Hill semiconscious in the
back seat of a car where a friend had moved him in an attempt to
transport him to the hospital. In response to the officer’s repeated
2 Simmons calls Terrell Hill his “stepdad”; however, Terrell Hill was actually the boyfriend of Simmons’s mother. We refer to him as “Terrell” to avoid confusion with the unrelated victim, Demaria Hill. inquiries as to who shot him, Hill replied that Simmons was the
shooter. Hill later died at the hospital. The medical examiner
concluded that Hill’s death was caused by a gunshot wound to the
head. A few days later, Simmons turned himself in at a police
station in Tampa, Florida. He told the police that he had shot Hill
in self-defense. However, no witness saw Hill with a gun or saw him
attempt to attack Simmons prior to the shooting.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the evidence was sufficient
to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Simmons
was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Shaw v.
State, 292 Ga. 871, 872 (1) (742 SE2d 707) (2013) (“[I]ssues of
witness credibility and justification are for the jury to decide, and
the jury is free to reject a defendant’s claim that he acted in self-
defense.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)).
2. Next, Simmons contends that the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial in response to
“emotional outbursts” of the victim’s family members and friends.
Simmons argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not take testimony from those present who observed the displays
of emotion, did not question the jurors about what they saw, and did
not give a curative instruction about the outbursts. We see no abuse
of discretion.
“Trial courts are vested with great discretion to grant or deny
mistrials because they are in the best possible position to determine
whether one is warranted.” Ragan v. State, 299 Ga. 828, 834 (3) (792
SE2d 342) (2016). “‘Measures to be taken as a result of
demonstrations and outbursts which occur during the course of a
trial are matters within the trial court’s discretion . . . .’” (Citation
omitted.) Green v. State, 300 Ga. 707, 710 (2) (797 SE2d 863) (2017).
“The decision [whether] to grant a mistrial . . . 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.” Jackson v. State, 292 Ga.
685, 689 (4) (740 SE2d 609) (2013).
The record shows that Simmons’s trial counsel moved for a
mistrial after a lunch break. He reported that jurors leaving for
lunch had passed the victim’s family members and friends in the hallway having “emotional outbursts.” Trial counsel proffered the
testimony of witnesses to the hallway outbursts. After listening to
counsel’s description of what had transpired, the trial court
determined that it did not need to hear from witnesses, and it denied
Simmons’s motion for a mistrial. The trial court determined that no
improper contact had been made with jurors and that merely
passing upset individuals in the hallway did not rise to the level of
prejudicing Simmons’s right to a fair trial.
The trial court’s conclusion was within its discretion. After
hearing trial counsel’s proffer of testimony regarding the emotional
outbursts of the victim’s family and friends, the trial court
determined that witness testimony was not necessary. The trial
court then considered whether the conduct described by counsel,
which consisted of a few people crying, with one person down on her
knees, had been so severe as to prejudice Simmons’s right to a fair
trial and determined that it had not. This was a proper exercise of
the court’s discretion. As for Simmons’s argument that the trial
court should have questioned the jurors to determine if they had been affected by the emotional displays, Simmons did not request
this, nor did he object to the trial court’s failure to do so. Finally,
the trial court offered to give a curative instruction to the jury during
the charge of the jury at the close of evidence. But, counsel did not
request the charge. Simmons cites no authority that would require
a trial court to grant a mistrial under these circumstances, and we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion based upon
the claims raised. See Ragan, 299 Ga. at 834 (no abuse of discretion
in denying mistrial where members of audience cried during
presentation of photographs of the victim); Walton v. State, 293 Ga.
607 (4) (748 SE2d 866) (2013) (no abuse of discretion in denying
mistrial where victim’s fiancée reportedly fainted on the way out of
the courtroom); Brannan v. State, 275 Ga. 70 (12) (561 SE2d 414)
(2002) (no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial where witness
cried on the stand).
Judgment affirmed. Nahmias, P. J., and Blackwell, Boggs, Peterson, Warren, Bethel, and Ellington, JJ., concur. DECIDED MARCH 13, 2020. Murder. Lowndes Superior Court. Before Judge Tunison. Larry M. Johnson, for appellant. Bradfield M. Shealy, District Attorney, Michelle T. Harrison, Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Oldham, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.