Wilson v. State

Shamar Wilson was convicted in Lowndes County of felony murder and armed robbery after fatally shooting Rashawn Mays during a marijuana purchase, and of attempted armed robbery of Adrian Bennett, who was present in the house at the time. Bennett testified that after the shooting, Wilson pointed a gun at him and demanded to know where 'the money' was, and that when Bennett tried to hand over his own wallet and phone, Wilson said 'no,' seemingly because he didn't want Bennett to see his face. Wilson appealed only the attempted armed robbery conviction and a related firearm charge, arguing there wasn't enough evidence he tried to take Bennett's property rather than only Mays's. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed, holding that a jury could reasonably infer Wilson was demanding money from Bennett specifically and declined to take his wallet only to avoid being seen, not because he lacked any intent to rob him. The court affirmed all of Wilson's convictions.

The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Wilson guilty of attempted armed robbery of Bennett, because a jury could reasonably conclude Wilson's demand for money and refusal to take Bennett's offered wallet reflected intent to rob Bennett rather than an absence of that intent.

The decision confirms that Georgia juries may infer robbery intent from ambiguous demands and a defendant's on-scene conduct, even without a completed taking, which affects how prosecutors charge and how appellate courts review sufficiency-of-evidence claims in armed robbery cases.

Affirmed

1. The court applied the constitutional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard from Jackson v. Virginia, which asks whether, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, without reweighing conflicting evidence or credibility.
2. To prove attempted armed robbery under Georgia law (OCGA §§ 16-4-1, 16-8-41(a)), the State had to show Wilson took a substantial step, intending to unlawfully take Bennett's property using a weapon, not merely that he robbed Mays.
3. The court reasoned that Bennett's testimony that Wilson pointed a gun at him and asked where 'the money' was could reasonably be understood by a jury as a demand directed at Bennett personally, not only Mays.
4. The court concluded that Wilson's refusal to take Bennett's wallet and phone, explainable as an effort to avoid Bennett seeing his face, did not negate intent to rob Bennett and instead supported an inference that Wilson intended to take his property.
5. Because the attempted armed robbery conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and Bennett testified Wilson had a gun during the encounter, the related firearm-possession count was also adequately supported.

• attempted armed robbery
• felony murder
• sufficiency of evidence
• firearm possession during a felony
• Lowndes County