In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: S e p te m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 6

S 1 6 A1 18 8 . HARRIS v . THE S TATE.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

S ta n le y Ha rris wa s trie d b y a De Ka lb Co u n ty ju ry a nd c on vic te d o f m a lic e

m u rd e r, th e u n la wfu l p o sse ssio n o f a fire a rm d u rin g th e c om m issio n o f a fe lo n y

,

a n d ta m p e rin g with e v id e n c e

, a ll in c o nn e c tio n with th e fa ta l sh o o tin g o f h is

wife

, Ha n e e fa h Ha rris. Th e a p p e lla n t c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c o urt e rre d wh e n it

re fu se d to c h a rg e th e ju ry o n vo lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r. 1 Bu t we fin d n o e rro r a n d

a ffirm

. 2

1 The appellant also sought to have this case rem anded to the t rial court f or a hearing

to consider additional claim s o f inef f e ctive assistance of counsel that his original appellate

lawy er f ailed to raise in h is m otion f or n ew trial. W e denied t h e mo t i o n to rem and. See

W i lson v. State, 286 Ga. 141, 144 (4) (686 S E 2 d 1 0 4 ) (2009) (“[ w]here the issue of trial

counsel’s ef

f ectiveness has been raised on m otion f o r n e w trial, a n y c laim s of inef f ective

assistance by trial counsel not raised at that tim e are waived,” and the appellant m a y pursue

those additional claim s only in habeas).

2 The a ppellant k i l l e d h i s wif

e on February 16, 2014. A DeKalb County grand jury

indicted the appellant on May 1, 2014 and charged him with m alice m urder, f elony m urder,

aggravated assault, the unlawf ul p ossession of a f

irearm during t he com m ission o f a f elony

, and tam pering with evidence. The appellant’s trial began on January 26, 2015, a nd the jury

returned its verdict t hree day s later, f inding the appellant guilty of all charges. The appellant

was sentenced to i mp r i s o n me nt f or lif e f or m alice m

urder, a c onsecutive term of1

. Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra ble to th e v e rd ic t, th e e v id e nc e sh o w s

th a t th e a p p e lla n t a nd Ha n e e fa h we re m a rrie d b u t h a d se p a ra te d a t so m e p o in t

in 2 0 1 3

. Th e c o u p le h a d th re e c h ild re n , an d th e y a lso we re ra isin g Ha n e e fa h ’s

n e p h e w a s th e ir o wn

. On th e e v e n in g o f F e b ru a ry 16

, 2 0 1 4

, th e y o u n g e r c h ild re n

we re sp e n d in g th e nig h t w ith th e a p p e lla n t in h is De Ka lb Co un ty h o m e

. Aro u n d

8 :0 0 p .m

., Ha n e e fa h a n d th e ir 1 7 -y e a r-o ld da u g h te r c a me t o th e a

pp e lla n t’s

h o u se to d ro p o ff m e dic in e fo r o n e o f th e y ou ng e r c h ild re n

.

Afte r Ha n e e fa h g a v e th e m e d ic in e to th e a p p e lla n t a n d re tu rn e d to h e r c a r,

th e a p p e lla n t a pp ro a c h e d a n d a sk e d to sp e a k to h e r. Ha n e e fa h e x ite d th e c a r a n d

sp o k e with th e a

p p e lla nt, ju st a fe w fe e t fro m th e ir 1 7 -y e a r-o ld d a u gh te r, wh o

re m a in e d se a te d in th e c a r. Th e d a u g h te r h e a rd th e a

pp e lla n t te ll he r m o th e r th a t

h e d id n o t wa n t a d iv o rc e

, a n d sh e th e n h e ard th e so u nd o f a gu nsh ot. Wh e n sh e

lo o k e d u p

, sh e sa w h e r m oth e r ly in g o n th e g ro un d a n d th e a p p e lla n t sta n d in g

im p risonm ent f

o r f ive y ears f

or the unlawf

ul possession of a f

irearm during the c o m m ission

of a f elony

, and a consecutive term of i m prisonm ent f

or o ne y ear f

o r t a m p ering with

evidence. The verdict as to f e lony m urder was vacated by operation of law, see M alcolm v.

State, 263 Ga. 369, 371-372 (4) (434 SE2d 479) (1993), and the aggravated assault m erged

into the m alice m

u rder, see Dy al v. State, 297 Ga. 184, 185 (1) (773 SE2d 249) (2015). The

a p p e llant tim ely f

iled a m o tion f

or new trial on F ebruary 10, 2015, and he ame n d e d i t o n

Novem ber 3, 2015. T he t ria l c o u r t denied his m o tion on Novem ber 1 7, 2015, and the

appellant tim ely

f iled a notice of appeal on N ovem ber 2 4, 2015. The case was docketed in

this Court f

or the April 2016 term

and orally

argued on July

12, 2016.

2o v e r h e r a n d sh o o tin g h e r a se c o n d tim e

. Th e d a ug hte r ra n fro m th e c a r, c a lle d

9 1 1

, a n d o b se rv e d th e a

p p e lla n t p u ll a d iffe re nt g u n fro m th e b a c k o f h is p a n ts

a n d p la c e it in h e r m o th e r’s h a n d

. S h e th e n sa w th e a p p e lla n t wa lk b a c k to wa rd

h is h o u se

, m a k e a c a ll o n h is c e ll p h o n e

, a n d th e n re tu rn to h e r m oth e r’s b o d y

a n d sh o o t h e r in th e h e a d

. 3

Wh e n la w e n fo rc e m e n t a rriv e d

, th e y fo un d H a n e e f a h ’s b o d y with a .4 5

c a lib e r se m i-a uto m a tic p isto l in h e r h a nd

. N o

. 4 5 c a lib e r sh e ll c a sin g s we re

fo u n d a t th e sc e n e

, n o r wa s th e re a n y e v id e n c e t h a t th e g u n ha d b e e n fire d

re c e n tly

, n o r w e re a n y fin g e rp rin ts fo u n d on th e g u n

. H o we v e r, p o lic e o ffic e rs

fo u n d a b o x o f .4 5 c a lib e r liv e ro u n d s in th e bo tto m d ra we r o f t h e a p p e lla n t’s

n ig h t sta n d

.

Th e a p p e lla n t t e s t i fie d a t tria l, a n d h e c la im e d b o th ju stific a tio n a n d

a c c id e n t. Ac c ord in g to th e a p p e lla n t, a fte r h e a

p p ro a c h e d Ha n e e fa h a n d a sk e d

to sp e a k with h e r, sh e g o t o u t o f h e r c a r an d p o in te d a g un a t h im

. Th e a p p e lla n t

sa id th a t h e wa s a

ble to c a lm Ha ne e fa h a n d th a t sh e a llo w e d h im to g o in to h is

3 The daughter testif

ied t o these f

acts at trial, and her testim ony was corroborated by

a recording of her 911 call, in which she reported that the appellant had just s hot her m other

af ter a s king to speak t o her, and in which the daughter d escribed the appellant putting a gun

in h er m other’s hand, talking on his cell phone, and r e t u r n i n g to her m other’s body and

shooting her again while the daughter was speaking to the 911 dispatcher.

3h o u se to tu c k th e y o un g e r c h ild re n in to b e d

. Wh ile h e wa s in sid e h is h o u se

, th e

a p p e lla n t re trie v e d h is .3 8 0 c a lib e r h an d g u n fro m h is b e d ro o m c lo se t, se n t th e

c h ild re n to b e d

, a nd we n t b a c k o u tsid e with th e gu n in h i s p o c k e t. Wh e n h e

a p p ro a c h e d Ha n e e fa h

, sh e wa s still p oin tin g h e r g un a t h i m an d to ld h im “ I

sh o u ld ha ve k ille d y o u a

lo ng tim e a g o ,” so h e sh o t h e r in th e c h e st in o rd e r to

p ro te c t h im se lf. He sh o t h e r a se c o n d tim e b e c a u se h e th o u g h t sh e wa s g e ttin g

u p to sh o o t him

. An d a c c o rd in g to th e a pp e lla n t, a s h e trie d to d isa rm h e r wh ile

sh e la y o n th e g ro u nd

, h i s g u n a c c id e n ta lly d isc h a rg e d

, re su ltin g in h e r b e in g

sh o t a th ird tim e

.

Th e ju ry re

je c te d th e a

p p e lla n t’s e x p la n a tio n f

o r th e k illin g

, a n d th e

a p p e lla n t d o e s n o t c la im o n a pp e a l th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su ffic ie n t to su sta in h is

c o n v ic tio n s. We n e v e rth e le ss h a v e c o nsid e re d th e su ffic ie n c y o f th e e vid e n c e

,

a n d we c o n c lu d e th a t it wa s le g a lly su ffic ie n t to a u th o riz e a ra tio n a l trie r o f fa c t

to fin d b e y o n d a re a so n a

b le d o u bt th a t th e a

p p e lla n t wa s gu ilty o f th e c rim e s o f

wh ic h h e wa s c o n vic te d

. S e e Ja c k so n v. V irg in ia

, 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 07

, 3 1 9 (III) (B)

(9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 L E2 d 5 60 ) (1 9 7 9 ). Se e a lso A n th o n y v. S ta te

, 2 9 8 Ga

. 8 2 7

,

8 2 9 (1 ) (7 8 5 SE2 d 2 7 7 ) ( 2 0 1 6 ) (“ [t] he ju ry is fre e to re je c t a n y e v id e n c e in

4su p p o rt o f a ju stific a tio n d e fe n se a n d to a c c e p t th e e v i d e n c e th a t th e sh o o tin g

wa s n o t d o n e in se lf-d e fe nse ” ).

2

. Th e a p p e lla n t n o w c la im s th a t h e k ille d Ha n e e fa h “ so le ly a s th e re su lt

o f a su dd e n

, v io le n t, a n d irre sistib le p a ssio n re su ltin g fro m se rio u s p ro v o c a tio n

su ffic ie n t to e x c ite su c h p a ssio n in a re a so n a b le pe rso n ,” se e OC G A § 1 6 -5 -2

(a ), a n d th a t th e tria l c o u rt, th e re fo re

, e rre d wh e n it re fu se d to c h a rg e th e ju ry o n

v o l u n t a ry m a n sla u gh te r. Bu t a lth o u g h “ ju ry c h a rg e s o n se lf-d e fe n se a n d

v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g hte r a re n o t m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e , th e p ro v oc a tio n n e c e ssa ry

to su p p o rt a c h a rg e o f v o lu n ta ry m a n sla ug hte r is d iffe re n t fro m th a t wh ic h will

su p p o rt a c l a i m o f s e l f-d e fe n se .” Du g g e r v

. S ta te

, 2 9 7 Ga

. 12 0, 1 2 4 (7 ) (7 7 2

S E2 d 6 9 5 ) ( 20 1 5 ) (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d). “Th e d istin gu ish in g

c h a ra c te ristic b e twe e n th e two c la im s is wh e th e r th e a c c u se d wa s so in flu e n c e d

a n d e x c ite d th a t h e re a c te d pa ssio na te ly ra th e r th a n sim p l y i n a n a tte m

p t to

d e fe n d h im se lf. On ly wh e re th is is sh o wn will a c h arg e o n v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r b e warra n te d .” Id . (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ).

He re

, th e a

p p e lla nt p o in ts to so m e pro o f o f p ote n tia l pro v o c a tio n

, b u t th is

c a se p re se n ts n o t e v e n a p re te n se o f p a ssio n

, m u c h le ss th a t th e a

p pe lla n t a c te d

so le ly a s th e re s u l t o f a pa ssio n th a t wa s “ su d d e n” a nd “ irre sistib le .” Th e

5a

p p e lla n t’s te stim o n y wa s th a t

— a fte r h e c a lm e d H a n e e fa h

— he we n t in to h is

h o u se

, re trie v e d a g u n

, se n t th e c h ild re n to b e d

, a n d re tu rn e d o u tsid e

. Th e re

, h e

sa id

, he sa w th a t sh e wa s “ still p o in tin g th e p isto l a t [h im ] , sa id [to h im se lf] a t

th a t p o in t, ‘it wa s e ith e r h e r o r m e ,’ a n d so [h e ] sh o t h e r.” Th is Co u rt p re v io u sly

h a s h e ld “ th a t n e ith e r fe a r th a t so m e on e is g o in g to p u ll a g u n n or fig h tin g ” is

su ffic ie n t a lo ne to re q u ire a c h a rg e o n v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r. Sm ith v

. S ta te

,

2 9 6 Ga

. 7 3 1

, 7 3 7 (3 ) (7 7 0 S E2 d 6 1 0 ) (2 0 1 5 ). S e e a lso Ta rp le y v

. S ta te

, 2 9 8 Ga

.

4 4 2

, 4 4 5 (3 ) (a ) (7 82 S E2 d 6 4 2 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (“ n o v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u gh te r c h a rg e wa s

wa rra n te d wh e re a t b e st, th e e v id e n c e sh o ws th a t th e a p p e lla n t wa s a tte m

p tin g

to re p e l a n a tta c k

, n o t th a t h e wa s s o a n g e r e d th a t h e re a c te d p a ssio n a te ly ” )

(c ita tio n a n d pu n c tu a tio n o m itte d). T he fa ilu re to c h a rg e o n v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r in th is c a se wa s n o e rro r.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

6