2 9 6 Ga . 5 12

F INAL COP Y

S1 4 A1 3 5 9 . KOS TURI v . THE S TATE.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

A p p e lla n t Ke v in Ko stu ri wa s c o n v ic te d o f m a lic e m u rd e r a n d o th e r c r i m e s

in c o n n e c tio n with th e sh oo tin g d e a th o f An g e l Ho p e F re e m an

. On a p p e a l, h e

a rg u e s o n ly th a t th e e vid e n c e p r e s e n te d a t his tria l wa s le g a lly in su ffic ie n t to

su sta in h is c o nv ic tio n s. We a ffirm

. 1

1

. Vie we d i n t h e lig h t m o st fa v o ra ble to th e v e rd ic ts, th e e v id e n c e

p re se nt e d a t t r i a l sh o we d th e fo llo win g

. Ap p e lla n t wa s 1 5 y e a rs o ld
, a n d

F re e m a n wa s 1 6
, wh e n sh e wa s k ille d

. T h e two te e n a g e rs ha d sta rte d d a tin g in

th e fa ll o f 2 01 0

. Ov e r th e n e x t se v e ra l m o n th s, th e y h a d n u m e ro u s a rg u m e n ts

1 F reeman was killed on F ebruary 2 1, 2011. On May 5
, 2011, a Clay ton County g rand jury indicted Appellant fo r malice murder, felony murder, ag g ravated assault with a deadly weapon, making false statements, tampering with evidence, possession of a handg un by a person under the
ag e of 18, and possession of a firearm during the commission o f a felony

. I n the same indictment, the g rand jury charg e d Robert B ethune with furnishing a handgu n t o a person under ag e 18 and
contr i b u t i n g to the delinquency o f a minor. Appellant and B ethune were re-indicted on the same charg es on September 8
, 2011. Their trial was set to beg in on F ebruary 25, 2013. That day
, B ethune pled g uilty to the two c harg e s ag ainst him; he was later sentenced u n d e r the F irst Offender Act to ten y ears in prison, with the f irst 3 6 months to be served in confinement and the balance to be served

on probation. Appellant was tried f r om F ebruary 25 to March 1, and the jury found him g uilty of all charg e s. O n March 18, 2013, the trial court sentenced A ppellant to serve life in p rison for malice murder and consecutive terms of y ears on other c o u n t s

. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, which his new appellate counsel amended on Aug ust 5, 2 013. The trial court denied the motion

on December 30, 2013. A ppellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the case was docketed in this Court for the September 2014 term and submitted for decision on the briefs.a n d b re a k -u p s, wh ic h o fte n ste m m e d fro m Ap p e lla nt’s b e in g je a lo u s o f

F re e m a n’s m a le frie n d s. Afte r o n e su c h a rg um e n t, two frie n d s o f th e c o u p l e

h e a rd A p p e lla n t sa y , “ I’m g o in g to k ill h e r. ” Bo th witn e sse s te stifie d th a t

Ap p e lla n t m a d e sim ila r sta te m e n ts on o th e r o c c a sio n s wh e n h e wa s u p se t with

F re e m a n, a n d a fte r a n o th e r a rg u m e n t, Ap p e lla n t to ld a c la ssm a te , “ If I c a n’t

h a v e h e r, n o o n e c a

n .” On Va le n tin e ’s Da y 2 01 1
, a fo rm e r b o y frie n d c o n ta c te d

F re e m a n, wh ic h le d t o a n o th e r a rg u m e n t a nd b re a k -u p

. Afte r th a t, o n e o f

F re e m a n’s frie n d s te stifie d
, Fre e m a n b e c a m e c o nc e rn e d th a t “ so m e th in g h a d

c h a n g e d in [Ap p e lla nt] .”

A fe w d a y s la te r, o n F e b ru ary 2 0
, 2 0 1 1
, Ap p e lla nt’s 2 1 -y e a r

- o ld n e ig h b o r,

Ro b e r t Be th u n e , g a v e Ap pe lla n t a lo a d e d .3 8 -c a lib e r re v o lv e r. Th a t n ig h t,

Ap p e lla n t e x c h a n g e d te x t m e ssa g e s with F re e m a n , te llin g he r th a t h e h a d a g u n

a n d su g g e stin g th a t h e wa s g o in g to k ill h im se lf. F re e m a n to ld Ap pe lla n t th a t

sh e lo v e d h im a n d a g re e d to m e e t h im a t his h o m e th e n e x t d a y

. Wh e n F re e m a n

m e t Ap p e lla nt o n th e a fte rn o o n o f F e b ru a ry 2 1
, h e le d h e r to a sm a ll wo o d e n fo rt

i n t h e wo o d s n e a rb y , w h e re h e wa s k e e p in g th e g u n

. A p p e lla n t th e n k i l l e d

F re e m a n with a sin g le sh o t fire d th ro u g h h e r h e a rt a t c lo se ra n g e

. At so m e p o in t

th e re a fte r, Ap pe lla n t c a lle d 9 1 1

. Wh e n th e po lic e a rriv e d
, Ap p e lla n t to ld th e m

2th a t a Hisp a n ic m a le ha d sh o t F re e m a n fro m 4 0 y a rd s a wa y a s th e y we re sittin g

o n th e fo rt. T h e p o lic e in itia te d a se a rc h b u t d e te rm in e d th a t a sh o t a s Ap p e lla n t

h a d d e sc rib e d wo u ld b e n e a rly im p ossib le

.
Ap p e lla n t wa s ta k e n to th e p o lic e s t a tio n fo r fu rth e r q u e stio n in g

. His

m o th e r a rriv e d sh o rtly th e re a fte r. Ap p e lla n t wa s th e n a d v ise d o f h is rig h ts

p u rsu a n t to Mi r a n d a v

. A riz o n a , 3 8 4 U. S

. 4 3 6 (8 6 S Ct 1 60 2
, 16 L E2 d 6 9 4 )

(1 9 6 6 ), wh ic h h e wa iv e d

. Ap p e lla n t’s m o th e r wa s p re se n t fo r th e re m a in d e r o f

th e in te rv ie w. Afte r th e in v e stig a to rs to ld A p p e lla n t th a t stip p lin g a ro u n d th e

e n tra n c e wo u n d in d ic a te d th a t F re e m a n h a d b e e n sh o t a t c lo se ra n g e , h e c h a n g e d

h is sto ry , c la im in g th a t sh e sh o t h e rse lf a nd th a t h e th re w th e g u n in to th e la k e

b e h in d th e fo rt be c a

u se h e “ d id n ’t wa nt a n y o n e to th in k sh e w a s a b a d pe rso n .”

Th e po lic e th e n to o k Ap p e lla n t b a c k to th e c rim e sc e n e to sh o w th e m wh e re h e

th re w th e g u n , wh ic h wa s re c o v e re d th e ne x t d ay

. Du rin g a la te r in te rv ie w a t th e

p o lic e sta tio n , Ap p e lla n t c h a ng e d his sto ry a ga in a fte r th e in v e stig a to rs to ld h im

th a t th e y did n o t b e lie v e th a t Fre e m a n sh o t h e rse lf. Th is tim e , Ap p e l la n t

c l a i me d th a t h e a c c id e n ta lly sh o t h e r wh ile p la y in g with th e g u n

. A t e s t

p e rfo rm e d o n Ap p e lla n t’s h a n d s re v e a le d th e p re se n c e o f g un sh o t re sid u e

.

At tria l, Ap p e lla n t re lie d o n a d e fe n se o f a c c id e n t, b u t h e d id n o t te stify

.

3Th e S ta te ’s fire a rm s e x p e rt te stifie d th a t th e r e v o l v e r u se d to sh oo t F re e m a n

re q u ire d 2 .5 p o u n d s of trig g e r-p re ssu re to fire if th e h a m m e r wa s c o c k e d a n d

1 1 .2 5 p o u n d s o f trig ge r-p re ssu re to fire if th e h a m m e r wa s n ot c o c k e d

.
Ap p e lla n t’s fire a rm s e x p e rt a g re e d t h a t i f t he g u n wa s n ot c o c k e d
, th e h e a v y

trig g e r-p u ll “ ru le s o u t a c c id e n t,” b u t h e te stifie d th a t a n a c c id e nta l d isc h a rg e wa s

m u c h m o re lik e ly if th e gu n wa s c o c ke d b e fo re be in g fire d

. On c ro sse x a m in a tio n , th e d e fe n se e xp e rt c o n c e de d th a t “ if so m e b o d y p u lls th e ha m m e r

b a c k , h e ’s ab o u t to sh o o t.”

2

. Un d e r OCGA § 1 6 -2 -2
, “ [a ] p e rso n sh a ll n o t b e fo u nd g u ilty o f a n y

c rim e c o m m itte d b y m isfo rtu n e or a c c id e n t wh e re it sa tisfa c to rily a p p e ars th e re

wa s n o c rim in a l sc h e m e o r u n de rta kin g , in te n tio n , o r c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e .”

Ap p e lla n t a rg ue s th a t th e e vid e n c e p re se n te d a t tria l wa s le g a lly in su ffic ie n t to

su p p o rt h is c o n v ic ti o n s b e c a use n o e v id e n c e e sta b lish e d a c rim in a l sc h e m e o r

u n d e rta k in g , n o r d id th e e v id e n c e o v e rc o m e th e d e fe n se th e o ry th a t Ap p e lla n t

la c k e d in te n t to c o m m it th e c rim e s. As we h a v e o fte n e xp la in e d , h o we v e r,

“ ‘[i] t wa s fo r th e ju ry to d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f th e witn e sse s

a n d to re so lv e a n y c o n flic ts o r in c o n siste n c ie s in th e e v id e n c e .’” V e g a v

. S ta te , 2 8 5 Ga

. 3 2
, 3 3 (6 7 3 S E2 d 2 2 3 ) (2 0 0 9) (c ita tio n

o m itte d ). W h e n v ie we d in th e l i g h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic t, th e e v id e n c e p re se n te d a t tria l a n d su m m a riz e d a b o v e w a s su ffic ie n t

4to a

uth o riz e a ra tio n a l ju ry to re je c t Ap p e lla n t’s a c c id e n t d e fe n se

a n d fin d h im g u ilty b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o ub t o f [th e c rim e s

c h a rg e d ]

. S e e J a c k s o n v

. V irg in ia
, 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7
, 3 19 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1
, 6 1 L E2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ); S m ith v. S ta te , 2 9 2 Ga

. 6 2 0, 62 1 (7 4 0 S E2 d 1 5 8 ) ( 2 01 3 ); Bro wn v

. S ta te , 2 92 Ga

. 4 5 4
, 4 56 (7 3 8 S E2 d 5 9 1 ) (2 0 1 3 ).

Th o m pso n v

. S ta te , 2 9 5 Ga

. 9 6
, 9 8 ( 7 5 7 S E2 d 84 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Ap p e lla n t’s

c h a lle ng e to h is c o n v ic tio n s is th e re fo re with o u t m e rit. 2

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

De c id e d F e b ru a ry 1 6 , 2 0 1 5

.

Mu rd e r. Cla y to n S u p e rio r Co u rt. Be fo re Ju d g e Ca rte r.

Ch a rle s M. Ev a n s, fo r a

p p e lla nt. Tra c y G ra h a m -La w so n , D i s t r i c t Atto rn e y , Eliz a

b e th A

. B a k e r, Mic h a e l D. T h u rsto n , Assista nt Distric t Atto rn e y s, S a m u e l S

. Ole n s, Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, P a tric ia B. Atta wa y Bu rto n , D e p u ty Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l, P a u laK. S m ith , S e n io r Assista n t A tto rn e y Ge n e ra l, Me g h a n H. Hill, Assista n t Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, fo r

a p p e lle e

.

2 I n making his sufficiency arg ument, Appell a n t s u ggests that the medical ex aminer' s testimony at trial about the definition of accident that her office used in determining the manner of F reeman’s death was inapposite to the statutory definition of accident. However, he did not object to that testimony , and “[ w] hen no objection to testimony is raised at trial, the issue is waived, and the error, if any , is not preserved fo r a p p eal.” Miller v. State, 295 G a. 769, 7 75 (764 SE2d 135) (2014). Appellant also did not object to the trial court’s jury instruction on the accident defense.

5