D'Andre Theophlouis Carter was convicted of malice murder
and associated crimes in connection with the shooting death
of Dequavious Reed. On appeal, Carter contends that the
evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that
the trial court erroneously admitted a portion of a recorded
conversation which captured the statements of a third party
who did not testify at trial, and that the trial court
erroneously admitted a recording of a jailhouse telephone
call made by Carter. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdicts, the
evidence presented below established as follows. On July 11,
2013, Reed was discovered dead on the floor of his residence,
with his pants pulled down and his shirt pulled up to his
neck; he had been shot twice. Jayvias Lott, who had been
arrested for armed robbery and other assorted crimes
unrelated to the murder, had heard details concerning the
crime and agreed to wear a secret recording device in order
to obtain a statement from Carter. As agreed, Lott later
recorded a conversation he had with Carter and a third party,
Kavozeia Walker. In the recorded conversation, Carter
recounts the events of Reed's murder, explaining that: he
and his two brothers, Claron and C.J., went to Reed's
residence under the pretense of purchasing drugs; after
pretending to leave, the trio reversed course, and Claron
shot the victim twice; Carter watched Reed die; the trio
rifled through Reed's pockets, searched his residence,
and stole marijuana and several hundred dollars; and, the
murder weapon was thrown into a nearby pond.
trial, Lott testified regarding his conversation with Carter,
and the recorded conversation was played for the jury.
Finally, the State presented evidence that a firearm, later
identified as the murder weapon, was discovered in a local
evidence as summarized above was sufficient to enable a
rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt
that Carter was guilty of the crimes of which he was
convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99
S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979). Though Carter argues that
there was insufficient evidence to support his burglary
conviction, there was evidence before the jury that Carter
and his brothers entered the house under the pretense of
purchasing drugs, going so far as to pretend to leave the
residence before reversing course and committing the armed
robbery that ended in Reed's death; accordingly, the
evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Carter
and his brothers entered the residence without authority and
with the intent to commit a theft therein. See State v.
Newton, 294 Ga. 767, 772 (755 S.E.2d 786) (2014).
Though Lott testified at trial, Walker did not, and Carter
asserts that the trial court erred in admitting Walker's
portion of the recorded conversation. Specifically, Carter
argues that Walker's portion of the conversation was
irrelevant under OCGA § 24-4-402, that it was
inadmissible hearsay under OCGA § 24-8-801, and that the
admission of Walker's portion of the conversation
violated Carter's right to confrontation. We find no
recording in question reflects that Walker entered the
conversation shortly after Carter and Lott began to speak,
and some of the more meaningful exchanges between the three
men include the following:
Walker: What are y'all taking about?
Carter: . . . Quay. Yeah.
Walker: What? Let me tell you about this s***. That
m*****f***** there just have got everything in this b****
pockets, bro. In his pockets. They didn't even go through
Carter: Cuz, you tripping, bro.
. . .
Walker: They ain't even go through the house.
Carter: That's what we did. But I knew what the f*** I
was doing. Because if we would have stayed a little bit
longer, we would have got caught.
Walker: True. True. True.
. . .
Lott: What y'all got?
Carter: S***. I got money and ...