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 01 6

S 1 6 A1 2 9 9 . D U BOS E v . S T A TE.
S 1 6 A1 3 0 0 . D U BOS E v . S T A TE.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

Co u rtn e y An w a r Du Bo s e w a s trie d b y a De Ka lb Co un ty ju ry a n d

c o n v ic te d o f fe lo n y m

u rd e r, a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt, a n d 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 o m m issio n o f a fe lo n y , a ll in c o nn e c tio n with th e fa ta l

sh o o tin g o f Atim a S m ith

. In Ca se No

. S 16 A1 2 9 9

, Du Bo se a p p e a ls fro m h is

c o n v ic tio n a n d se nte n c e , c o nte n d in g th a t th e tria l c o urt e rre d wh e n it se n te n c e d

h im fo r fe lo n y m

u rd e r ra th e r th a n v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r, wh e n it se n te n c e d

h im se p a ra te ly fo r fe lo n y m u rd e r a n d a gg ra v a te d a ssa u lt, a nd wh e n it c h a rg e d

th e j u r y o n v o lu nta ry m a nsla u g h te r. Th o se c o nte n tio n s, h o we v e r, la c k m e rit, a n d

in Ca se N o

. S 1 6 A 1 2 9 9, we a ffirm

. In C a se No

. S 16 A 1 3 0 0

, Du Bo se a p p e a ls

fro m a n o rd e r o f th e tria l c ou rt th a t c la rifie d h is se n te n c e , b u t h e fa ils to a sse rt

a n y c la im o f e rro r a s to th a t o rd e r. Ac c o rd in g ly

, we d ism iss th e a p pe a l in Ca seNo

. S 1 6 A1 3 0 0

. S e e Ro wla n d v

. S ta te

, 2 6 4 Ga

. 8 7 2

, 8 7 3 -8 74 (1 ) (4 52 SE2 d 7 5 6 )

(1 9 9 5 ). 1

1

. 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 Du Bo se a n d S m ith we re ro m a n tic a lly in v o lv e d

, a n d th e y liv e d to g e th e r in

a n a p artm e n t in De Ka lb C o u n ty

. In th e la te ho urs o f Au gu st 2 3

, 2 0 1 2

, Du Bo se

l e a r n e d th a t Sm ith h a d re c e iv e d so m e te x t m e ssa g e s fro m ano th e r m a n

.

Be lie vin g th a t S m ith h a d be e n u n fa ith fu l to h im

, Du B o se b e c a m e e n ra ge d

, a n d

1 Sm ith w as k illed on August 24, 2012. DuBose was indicted on February 25, 2014, and he was charged w i t h ma l i ce m urder, two c ounts of f

elony m urder, a ggravated assault,
the unlawf

ul possession o f a f

irearm by a convicted f

elon, th e u n lawf

u l possession of a f irearm during the com m i ssion of a f elony

, and thef

t b y t aking. His t rial began on March 10, 2014, and the j ury r eturned its v erdict f our day s l ater, f

inding h i m g u i lty of both counts of
f elony m urder, aggravated a ssault, the unlawf ul possession of a f

irearm by a convicted f

elon,
and t h e u n lawf

ul possession o f a f

irearm during the com m ission of a f elony

. As to m alice

m urder, t he jury f

o u nd DuBose guilty of the l e s s e r o f f ense of voluntary m anslaughter. He

was acquitted of t hef

t by taking. Af

ter DuBose initially (and im properly ) was sentenced f or b o t h voluntary m anslaughter a nd f elony m urder, the trial court resentenced h i m t o im p risonm ent f

or lif e without the possibility of parole f or f elony m urder predicated on the
unlawf ul possession o f a f

i rearm b y a convicted f

elon, i m prisonm ent f

o r twenty consecutive

y ears f or aggravated assault, and im prisonm e n t f

or f ive consecutive y ears f

or the unlawf

ul possession of a f

irearm during the com m ission of a f elony

. The other f

elony m urder and the voluntary m anslaughter were v acated by o peration of law, and t he unlawf ul possession of a f irearm by a convicted f

elon m erged int o t h e f

e l o ny m urder f or which it was the predicate
f elony

. S ee Sm ith v. State, 272 Ga. 874, 8 81 (6) (c) (536 SE2d 514) ( 2000); see also Green

v. State, 2 8 3 Ga. 126, 130 (2) (657 SE2d 221) (2008). DuBose t im ely f iled a m o tion f

or new trial on April 3, 2014, and h e am ended it o n October 16, 2015. T he t r ial court denied his

m otion on Novem

ber 24, 2015, and (as to Case No. S16A1299) DuBose tim e ly f iled a notice
of appeal directed to the Court of Appeals on Decem ber 21, 2015. T he C o u rt of Appeals
transf erred the c ase to us on February 16, 2 016, it was docketed in this c o urt f or the April
2016 term , and it was orally argued on July 11, 2016.

2h e a n d S m ith a rg u e d in th e be d ro o m th a t th e y sh a re d

. S m ith ’s d a u g h te r — wh o

wa s six te e n y e a rs o f a g e a n d h a d b e e n sta y in g with Du Bo se a n d S m ith fo r th e

su m m e r — o v e rh e a rd th e a rg u m e n t fro m a n o th e r ro o m in th e a p ar t me n t

, a n d

sh o rtly a fte r m id nig h t, sh e h e a rd g u n sh o ts. S h e im m e d ia te ly c a lle d 9 1 1

, a n d sh e

sa w D u Bo se wa lk o ut o f th e a p a rtm e n t, c a rry in g h e r m o th e r’s Glo c k h a n d g u n

.

Wh e n e m e rg e nc y p e rso n n e l re sp o nd e d

, th e y f o u n d th a t Sm ith h a d

su s t a i n e d m

ultip le g u n sh o t wo u n d s, a n d th e y fo u n d Du Bo se ’s Bro wn in g 9

-

m illim e te r p isto l n e a rb y

. S m ith la te r d ie d a s a r e su lt o f h e r wo u n d s. Wh e n

Du Bo se wa s a rre ste d

, h e a d m itte d th a t h e k ille d S m i t h

, b ut h e c la im e d th a t h e

d id so in a su d d e n fit o f pa ssio n a fte r d isc o v e rin g wh a t h e c on sid e re d e v id e n c e

o f h e r u n fa ith fu ln e ss. Du Bo se d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t th e e v id e n c e is su ffic ie n t to

su sta in h i s c o n v ic tio ns. Ne v e rth e le ss, a s is o u r c usto m a ry p ra c tic e in m u rd e r

c a se s, we in d e p e n d e n tly h a v e re v ie we d th e re c o rd with a n e y e to wa rd th e le g a l

su ffic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e

. We c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t tria l 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 Du Bo se wa s g u ilty o f th e c rim e s of wh ic h h e wa s c on vic te d

. S e e

Ja c k so n v

. Virg in i a , 4 4 3 U

. S. 3 0 7

, 3 19 (III) (B) (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 )

3(1 9 7 9 ). S e e a lso Wh ite v

. Sta te

, 2 8 7 Ga

. 7 1 3

, 7 1 5 (1 ) (b ) (6 9 9 S E2 d 2 9 1 ) (2 0 1 0 )

(“ [i] t is fo r a j u r y t o d e te rm in e fro m a ll th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta nc e s wh e th e r a

k illin g is in te n tio n a l a n d m a lic io u s” ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ).

2

. At tria l, th e j u r y w a s c h a rg e d on v o lu n ta ry m a n slau gh te r a s a le sse r

o ffe n se in c lu de d in m a lic e m u rd e r, a n d a s to m a lic e m u rd e r, th e ju ry a c c e p te d

th a t Du Bo se k ille d S m ith a s a re su lt o f a n irre sisti b l e p a ssio n arisin g fro m

p ro v o c a tio n a n d fo un d h im g u i l t y o f o nly v o lu nta ry m an sla u g h te r. Du Bo se

c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d w h e n it se n te n c e d h im fo r a fe lo ny m u rd e r o f

wh ic h th e ju ry a lso fo u n d h i m g u ilty

, ra th e r th a n v o lu n ta ry m a nsla ug h te r. In

Ed g e v

. S ta te

, 2 6 1 Ga

. 8 6 5 (4 1 4 S E2 d 4 6 3 ) (1 99 2), th is Co urt a d o p te d wh a t ha s

c o m e to b e k n o wn a s th e “ m o d ifie d m e rg e r ru le

, ” wh ic h h o ld s th a t, wh e n a

d e f e nd a n t is fo un d g u ilty o f v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r, he c a n n o t a lso b e

c o n v ic te d o f fe lo n y m

u rd e r b a se d o n th e sa m e u n d e rly in g a c ts. 26 1 Ga

. a t 8 6 8

(2 ). Bu t th is C o u rt ha s c o n siste n tly lim ite d th e a p p lic a tio n of th e ru le to c a se s

in wh ic h th e fe lo ny m

u rd e r is p re d ic a te d o n a fe lo n y th a t is itse lf in te g ra l to th e

k illin g , ty p ic a lly a n a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt. S e e Wa lla c e v. S ta te

, 2 9 4 Ga

. 2 5 7

, 2 5 8

-

2 5 9 (2 ) (7 5 4 S E2 d 5) ( 2 0 1 3 ). S e e a lso Grim e s v. Sta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 5 5 9

, 5 6 1 (2 )

4(7 4 8 S E2 d 4 4 1 ) (2 0 1 3 ). M o re o v e r, th is Co u rt h a s c o nsiste n tly re fu se d to e x te n d

th e Ed g e ru le to c a se s in wh ic h fe lo n y mu r d e r i s p re d ic a te d o n th e u n la wfu l

p o sse ssio n o f a fire a rm by a c o n v ic te d fe lo n

. S e e , e

. g ., Am o s v

. S ta te

, 2 9 7 Ga

.

8 9 2

, 8 94 (2 ) (7 7 8 S E2 d 2 0 3) (2 0 1 5 ); La wso n v

. Sta te

, 2 80 Ga

. 8 8 1

, 8 8 3 (3 ) (6 3 5

S E2 d 1 3 4 ) (2 00 6). He re , th e fe lo n y m u rd e r fo r w h i c h Du Bo se w a s se n te n c e d

wa s p re d ic a te d u p o n th e u n la wfu l p o sse ssio n o f a fire a rm by a c o n v ic te d fe lo n

.

Alth o u g h Du B o se c o n te n d s th a t his u n la wfu l p o sse ssio n o f a fire arm wa s

n o t i n d e p e n d e nt o f th e killin g

 ̄ h e sa y s th a t h e d id no t p o sse ss a fire a rm ,

e x c e p t wh e n h e gra

b b e d S m ith ’s Glo c k to fire it a t h e r

 ̄ th is c la im is b e lie d b y

th e re c o rd

, wh ic h sh o ws th a t S m ith w a s k il l e d n o t with th e Glo c k

, b u t with

Du Bo se ’s o wn Bro wn in g 9

- mi l l i me te r p isto l. His po sse ssio n o f th a t g u n wa s

in d e pe n d e n t o f th e p ro v o k e d p a ssio n th a t w a s th e b a sis fo r th e fin d in g o f g u ilt

a s to v o lu n ta ry m a nsla u g h te r, a n d it wa s in d e p e nd e n t of th e k illin g

. Be c a u se th e

fe lo ny m u rd e r c h a rg e in th is c a se is p re d ic a te d o n th e u nla wfu l a nd in d e p e n d e n t

p o sse ssio n of a fire a rm b y a c o n v i c te d fe lo n , th e Ed g e m o d ifie d m e rg e r ru le

5d o e s n o t a

p p ly

. 2 As a re su lt, th e tria l c o u rt p ro p e rly se n te n c e d Du Bo se fo r fe lo n y

m u rd e r.

3

. D u Bo se a lso c la im s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n it se nte n c e d h im fo r

b o t h fe lo n y m

urd e r a n d a g g ra v a te d a ssa ult. D u Bo se c o nte n ds th a t th e tw o

o ffe n se s sh o u ld m e rg e b e c a use th e y a re ba se d on th e s a me c o n d u c t. Bu t th is

Co u rt re c e n tly h e ld in Cra y to n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 8 Ga

. 7 92

, 8 0 1 (7 ) (7 8 4 S E2 d 3 4 3 )

(2 0 1 6 ), th a t se n te n c in g a d e fe n d a n t in v irtu a lly id e n tic a l c irc u m sta n c e s fo r b o th

fe lo ny m u rd e r (p re d ic a te d o n u n la wfu l p o sse ssio n o f a fire a rm ) a n d a g g ra v a te d

a ssa u lt (a ssa u lt b y u se o f a de a d ly w e a p on ) wa s p ro p e r. S e e a lso La wso n , 2 8 0

Ga

. a t 88 1 (3 ). Un d e r th e re c e n t p re c e de n ts o f th is Co u rt, th e re wa s n o e rro r in

se n te nc in g Du Bo se fo r b o th fe lo n y m urd e r a n d a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt.

4

. Fin a lly

, Du B o se c o nte n d s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n it in stru c te d th e

ju ry a b o u t v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r. Ac c o rd in g to D u Bo se , th e in stru c tio n a t

issu e wa s n o t su ffic i e n tly ta ilo re d to h is c a se , a n d th e tria l c o urt sh o uld h a v e

c la rifie d th a t in fid e lity be twe e n u n m a rrie d p e rso n s c o u ld re su lt in su ffic ie n t

2 Because this is not a c ase in which the def endant only c am e into the unla w f ul possession of a f

irearm due to “a sudden, v i o l ent, and irresistible passion resulting f rom serious provocation” as described in OCGA § 16-5-2 (a), this case does n ot present the issues
discussed in concurring opinions in Clough v. S tate

, 2 98 G a. 594, 598-601 (783 SE2d 637) (2016) ( Blackwell, J

., concurring), and W allace, 294 Ga. at 260-263 ( Melton, J., concurring).

6p ro v o c a tio n to m it i g a t e a k illin g u n d e r OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 (a ). Du Bo se

a c k n o wle d g e s th a t h e fa ile d to o b je c t to th e ju ry in s t r u c tio n a t tria l, b u t h e

a rg u e s th a t th e in stru c tio n wa s p la in lye rro n e o us. S e e OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 8 (b ).

To sh o w p la in e rro r, Du Bo se m u s t e s t a b lish n o t o n ly th a t th e ju ry

in stru c tio n wa s e rro n e ou s, b u t a lso th a t “ it wa s ob v io usly so ” a n d th a t “ it lik e ly

a ffe c te d th e o u tc om e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s.” S ta te v. Ke lly

, 2 90 G a

. 2 9

, 3 3 (2 ) (a )

(7 1 8 S E2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 01 1). Ev e n a ssu m in g th a t th e ju ry in stru c tio n in th is c a se wa s

o b v io u sly e rro n e o u s , D u B o se h a s fa ile d to sh o w th a t th e ju ry wa s c o n fu se d

a b o u t wh e th e r it c o u l d f

i n d h i m

— a s a n u nm a rrie d p e rso n c la im in g to h a v e

b e e n p ro v o k e d b y in fid e lity
— g u ilty o f v o lu n ta ry m an sla u g h te r a s a le sse rin c lu de d o ffe n se

. In fa c t, th e ju ry in th is c a se d id a c c e p t Du Bo se ’s d e fe n se o n

o n e c o u n t, fin d in g h im g u i l t y o f vo lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r in ste a d of m a lic e

m u rd e r. It is, th e re fo re , e vid e n t th a t th e ju ry c h a rg e s in no wa y c o nfu s e d o r

h in d e re d th e ju ry in i t s ab i lity to c o n sid e r v o lu n ta ry m a n slau g h te r a s a le sse rin c lu de d o ffe n se . Du Bo se h a s fa ile d to sh o w th a t a n y e rro r in th e ju ry c h a rg e s

7a ffe c te d th e ou tc o m e o f th e pro c e e d in g s, a n d we c o n c lu d e th a t th e c h a rg e s we re

n o t p la in ly e rro n e o u s. 3

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d in Ca se No

. S 1 6A1 2 9 9

. Ap p e a l d ism isse d in Ca se No

.

S 1 6 A1 3 0 0 . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

3 DuBose also claim s that t he jury w as conf used about its ability to f

ind him guilty of voluntary m anslaughter as a lesser-included of f ense based upon a B iblical ref erence m ade by the prosecuting attorney d uring closing argum ent. But DuBose did not object to the

argum ent at trial, and “alleged e rrors

. . . based on im proper rem arks during closing a rgum ent

are not subject to r eview on appeal f or plain error.” G ates v. State, 298 G a. 324, 328 (4) (781 SE2d 772) (2016).

8