Williams v. State
251 Ga. 749, 312 S.E. 2d 40 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's other, uncharged criminal acts is admissible if it is substantially relevant for a purpose other than showing criminal character, such as establishing a pattern, scheme, or identity, and if the state shows the defendant was the perpetrator and a sufficient similarity or connection exists between the extrinsic and charged offenses.
Facts:
- Jimmy Ray Payne, 21, was last seen by his family on the morning of April 21, 1981.
- The following day, a witness saw Wayne Bertram Williams with Payne standing near a parked white station wagon, approximately one mile from the Chattahoochee River.
- On April 27, 1981, Payne’s body was discovered in the Chattahoochee River, with the cause of death determined to be asphyxia.
- Nathaniel Cater, 28, was last seen alive by a friend on the evening of May 21, 1981, holding hands with Williams outside a theater.
- In the early morning of May 22, 1981, a police surveillance team stationed at a bridge over the Chattahoochee River heard a loud splash.
- Immediately after the splash, the team observed Williams's car start up from a position on the bridge and drive away; police stopped the car shortly thereafter.
- On May 24, 1981, Cater's body was found in the Chattahoochee River a short distance from where Payne's body was recovered; his cause of death was also asphyxia.
- Textile fibers and dog hairs recovered from the bodies of Payne, Cater, and ten other victims were found to be consistent with samples taken from Williams's home, vehicles, and German Shepherd dog.
Procedural Posture:
- Wayne Bertram Williams was tried for the murders of Jimmy Ray Payne and Nathaniel Cater in the Fulton County Superior Court (trial court).
- During the trial, the court permitted the state to introduce evidence related to ten other uncharged homicides.
- On February 27, 1982, the jury returned a verdict finding Williams guilty of both murders.
- Williams filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied on December 16, 1982.
- Williams (appellant) then appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of evidence concerning ten uncharged homicides, introduced to show a pattern of conduct and establish the defendant's identity in the murders of two victims, violate the rule against introducing evidence of other crimes?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, Justice
No, the admission of evidence concerning the ten uncharged homicides does not violate the rule against introducing evidence of other crimes. Evidence of extrinsic offenses may be admitted if it is substantially relevant for a purpose other than showing the defendant has a criminal character, such as establishing identity or a common plan or scheme. Here, the sheer number of victims with common characteristics—young, Black males from low-income homes in Atlanta—each logically connected to Williams by hair and fiber evidence, tended to show a pattern of killings. The court determined that the state presented sufficient evidence to establish that Williams was the perpetrator of the extrinsic offenses and that there was a sufficient similarity and connection between the ten uncharged homicides and the murders of Payne and Cater to prove the latter were part of that pattern. Therefore, the evidence was relevant to the issue of identity and was properly admitted.
Dissenting - Smith, Justice
Yes, the admission of evidence concerning the ten uncharged homicides violates the rule against other crimes evidence and denied the appellant a fair trial. The overriding policy of excluding such evidence is to prevent undue prejudice, confusion of issues, and unfair surprise. The ten extrinsic offenses were not sufficiently similar to the charged crimes to establish a unique modus operandi, as evidenced by dissimilarities in victim ages, causes of death for two victims, and the locations where bodies were found. The state's proof that Williams perpetrated the other crimes was weak and circumstantial, failing to meet a 'clear and convincing' standard. The immense prejudice created by introducing evidence of ten other murders far outweighed its questionable probative value, effectively forcing Williams to defend against twelve homicides instead of the two for which he was indicted.
Analysis:
This landmark Georgia decision significantly broadened the 'plan, scheme, or pattern' exception for the admissibility of other crimes evidence. It established that a large number of similar offenses, linked by circumstantial evidence, can collectively form a 'pattern' sufficient to prove the identity of the perpetrator in the charged crime. The ruling provides a powerful tool for prosecutors in serial crime cases, allowing them to introduce a broad range of evidence that might otherwise be excluded as character evidence. However, it also raises concerns about the potential for undue prejudice, as defendants may be forced to defend against numerous uncharged acts in a single trial.
Unlock the full brief for Williams v. State