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

De c id e d: Ap ril 4

, 2 0 1 6

S 15 G 1 0 4 7 . CARTER v . THE S TATE.

MELTON, Ju stic e

.

Ch e rn a rd Ca rte r a n d h is two c o -d e fe n d a n ts we re in v o lv e d in a g u n fig h t a t

a n a pa rtm e n t c o m

p l e x

, a n d a stra y bu lle t k ille d Ly n e tte Re e se

. Ca rte r wa s

c h a rg e d

, in re le v a n t p a rt, with m a lic e m u rd e r a n d th re e c o u n ts of fe lo n y m u rd e r

p re d ic a te d o n a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt. At tria l, th e ju ry wa s a lso in s t r u c t e d o n

p ro v o c a tio n a n d v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f b o th

m a lic e m u rd e r a n d fe lo n y m

u rd e r. Th e ju ry fo un d C a rt e r n ot g u ilty o f m a lic e

m u rd e r a n d n o t g u ilty o f v o lu n ta ry m a nsla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f

m a lic e m u rd e r. Th e ju ry a lso fo u n d Ca rte r n o t g u ilty o f e a c h c o u n t of fe lo n y

m u rd e r (i.e

. th e two c o u n ts re la t i n g to Ca rte r sh o o tin g a t e a c h o f h is c o

d e fe n d a n ts a nd c a

u sin g R e e se ’s d e a th

, an d o n e c h ar g e re la tin g to Ca rte r

c o m m ittin g a n a g g r a v a t e d a ssa u lt b y sh o otin g Re e se

, wh ic h le d to he r d e a th ).

Ho we ve r, it fo u n d h i m g u ilty o f vo lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e do ffe n se o f e a c h c o u nt o f fe lo n y m u rd e r. Th u s, Ca rte r h a d b e e n fo u n d g u ilty o f

v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u gh te r a s a le sse r in c lu de d o ffe n se of th e a lle ge d fe lo n y m u rd e r

o f Re e se

, b u t h a d a lso be e n fo u n d n o t g u ilty o f v o lu n ta ry m a nsla u g hte r a s a

le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f th e a lle ge d m a lic e m u rd e r o f Re e se

.

On a p p e a l, C a r t e r a r g u e d th a t th e v e rd ic t wa s an im p e rm issib le “ re p u g n a n t

v e rd ic t” b e c a

u se h e wa s fo u n d “ b o th n o t g u ilty a n d g u ilty ” of th e sa m e c rim e o f

v o lu n ta r y ma n s l a

u g h te r with re sp e c t to th e sa m e v ic tim

, Re e se

. S e e Wile y v

.

S t ate

, 1 2 4 Ga

. A p p

. 65 4 (1 8 5 S E2 d 5 8 2) (1 9 7 1 ) (wh e re de fe n d a n t w a s f o u n d

b o th g u ilty a n d n o t g u ilty of id e ntic a l c ha rg e s in a n a c c usa tio n, th e d e fe n d a n t’s

m o tio n in a rre st of ju d gm e n t to c h a ll e n g e th e g uilty v e rd ic t sh o u ld h a v e b e e n

g ra n te d

, b e c a

u se “ [v ] e rd ic ts wh ic h a re re p u g n an t a n d se lf-c o n tra d ic to ry c a n n o t

b e a llo we d to sta n d ” ) (c ita tio n o m itte d). Th e Co u rt of Ap pe a ls u p h e ld Ca rte r’s

v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r c o n v ic tio n

, a n d w e g ra n te d C a rte r’s p e titio n fo r a writ

o f c e rtio ra ri to d e te rm in e wh e th e r th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls e rre d in th is ru lin g

. A s

e x p la in e d m o re fu lly b e lo w, a lth o ug h we d isa g re e w ith so m e o f th e Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls’ re a so n in g

, we c o n c lu d e th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls u ltim a te ly re a c h e d

th e c o rre c t re su lt in u p h o ld in g Ca rte r’s c o n v ic tio n fo r v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r.

We th e re fo re a ffirm

.

2As a n in itia l m a tte r, it is wo rth n otin g th a t, a lth o u g h th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls

a c k n o wle d g e d t

h e po te n tia l fo r re p u g na n t v e rd ic ts o ve r fo rty y e a rs a g o in Wile y

,

su p ra

, th is Co u rt h a s n e v e r a d o p te d th e re a so n in g in Wile y

. F u r t h e r m o re

, th is

C o u r t h a s n ot a n a ly z e d th e c o n c e p t of re p u g n a n t v e rd ic ts in re la tio n to t h i s

Co u rt’s a b o litio n o f th e “in c o n siste n t v e rd ic t” ru le fifte e n y e a rs a fte r th e Co urt

o f Ap p e a ls d e c id e d Wile y

. S e e Mila m v

. S ta te

, 2 5 5 Ga

. 5 6 0 (2 ) (3 4 1 S E 2 d 2 1 6 )

(1 9 8 6 ). Mu c h lik e a re p u g n a n t v e rd ic t, a n in c o ns i s t en t v e rd ic t in vo lv e s a n

a lle g e d in c o n siste nc y b e twe e n g u ilty a n d n o t g u ilty v e rd ic ts a g a in st a d e fe n d a n t

o r d e fe n da n ts th a t c a n n o t be lo g ic a lly re c o n c ile d. S e e Tu rn e r v

. S ta te

, 2 8 3 Ga

.

1 7 ( 2 ) (6 5 5 S E2 d 5 8 9 ) (2 0 0 8 ); Lu c a s v

. S ta te

, 2 6 4 G a

. 8 4 0 (4 5 2 S E2 d 1 1 0 )

(1 9 9 5 ). Ho we v e r, b e c a

u s e t h e in c o n siste nt v e rd ic t ru le h a s b e e n a b olish e d

, “ a

d e fe n d a n t c a n n o t a tta c k a s in c o n siste n t a ju ry v e rd ic t o f g u ilty o n on e c o u n t a n d

n o t g u ilty o n a d iffe re n t c o u n t” a s a le g itim a t e me a n s o f ha v in g h is o r h e r

c o n v ic tio n re ve rse d

. (F o o tn o te o m itte d .) Du m a s v. Sta te

, 2 6 6 G a

. 7 9 7

, 7 9 9 (1 )

(4 7 1 S E 2 d 5 0 8 ) (1 9 9 6). Th is is th e c a se b e c a u se

it is no t ge n e ra lly with in th e c o u rt' s po w e r to m a ke in q uirie s in to th e

j u r y ' s d e lib e ra tio n s, o r to sp e c u la te a bo ut th e re a so n s fo r a n y

in c o n siste nc y b e twe e n g u ilty a n d n o t g u ilty v e rd ic ts.

. . . [A] p p e lla te

c o u rts “ c a n n o t k n o w a

n d sh o u ld no t sp e c u la te wh y a ju ry a c q u itte d

o n

... [o ne ] o ffe n s e a nd c o n v ic te d o n

... [a no th e r] o ffe n se

. Th e

3re a so n c o u ld b e a n e rro r b y th e ju ry in its c o n sid e ra tio n o r it c o u ld

b e m ista ke

, c o m

pro m ise

, o r le n ity

. ...” S ta te d a n o th e r wa y

, it is

im p ru d e n t a n d u n wo rk a

b le

... [to ] a llo w c rim in a l d e fe n d a n ts to

c h a lle n g e in c o n siste n t v e rd ic ts o n th e g ro u n d th a t in th e ir c a se th e

v e rd ic t wa s n o t th e p ro d u c t o f le n ity

, b u t o f so m e e rro r th a t wo rk e d

a g a in st th e m

. S u c h a n in d iv id u a liz e d a sse ssm e n t o f th e re a so n fo r

th e in c o n siste n c y wo u ld b e b a se d e ith e r o n p u re sp e c u la tio n

, o r

wo u ld re q u ire in q u irie s in to th e ju ry ' s d e lib e ra tio n s th a t th e c o u rts

g e n e ra lly will n ot un d e rta k e

. U n ite d Sta te s v

. P o we ll, [4 6 9 U

. S

. 5 7

, 6 6 (1 0 5 S Ct. 4 7 1

, 83 L E2 d 4 6 1 (1 9 8 4 )] ; S m a sh u m v. S ta te

, 2 6 1 Ga

. 2 4 8 (2 ) (4 0 3 S E2 d 7 9 7 ) (1 9 91 ). 1

Tu rn e r, su p ra , 2 8 3 Ga

. a t 2 0 (2 ).

Ca rte r c la im s th a t th e d iffe re n c e b e twe e n re p u g n a n t v e rd ic ts a n d

in c o nsiste nt v e rd ic ts is t h e f a c t th a t in c on siste n t v e rd ic ts in vo lv e a fin d in g o f

g u ilt a n d a n a c q u itta l o n e ntire ly se p a ra te o ffe n se s, wh e re a s re p u g n a nt v e rd ic ts

in v o lv e a fin d in g o f g u ilt a n d a n a c qu itta l on th e sa m e o ffe n se

. Ho we v e r, u n d e r

th e fa c ts o f th is c a se

, v o lu n t a r y m a nsla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f

m a lic e m u rd e r is no t th e sa m e o ffe n se a s v o lu n t a ry m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r

1 Th e re is a n e xc e p tio n to th e in c o n siste n t v e rd ic t ru le th a t wo u ld h a v e n o

a p p lic a tio n to th e fa c ts o f th e c u r r e n t c a se

, if, in fa c t, we we re to c o n sid e r a

re p u gn a n t v e rd ic t to be m e re ly a v aria tio n o f a n in c o n siste n t v e rd ic t. “ [W] h e n

in ste a d o f b e in g le ft to sp e c u la te a b o u t th e un kn own m o tiv a tio n s o f th e ju ry th e

a p p e lla t e r e c o rd m a k e s tra n sp a re n t th e ju ry ' s re a so n in g w h y it fo u n d th e

d e fe n d a n t n o t g u ilty o f o n e o f th e c h a rg e s, “ [t] h e re is

... n o sp e c ula tio n

, a n d th e

p o lic y e x p la in e d in P o w e ll[, su p ra ] an d a d o p te d in M ila m, su pra

, ... d o e s n o t

a p p ly . [Cit.] ” Tu rn e r, su pra , 2 8 3 Ga . a t 2 0-2 1 (2 ).

4in c lu de d o ffe n se o f fe lo n y m u rd e r, a n d th e two v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r v e rd ic ts

c a n b e lo g ic a lly re c o n c ile d

. Th e y a re m e re ly two d iffe re nt o ffe nse s u po n wh ic h

th e ju ry wa s fre e to fin d C a rte r g u ilty o r n o t g u ilty b a se d o n th e fa c ts o f th e c a se

a s in te rp re te d b y t h e j u r y

. Ac c o rd in g ly

, th e re is n o re pu gn a n t v e rd ic t, a n d we

n e e d n o t d e c i d e t h e q u e stio n wh e th e r th e ru le th a t we a n no u n c e d in Mila m

,

su p ra

– w h ic h fo r b i d s a de fe n d a n t fro m a tta c k in g a s in c o n siste n t a v e rd ic t o f

g u ilty o n o n e c ou nt a nd n o t g u ilty o n a d iffe re n t c ou nt

– is ju st a s a p p lic a b le in

re p u gn a n t v e rd ic t c a se s a s it is in o th e r in c o nsiste nt v e rd ic t c a se s. 2

P u rsu a n t to OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2

,

[a ] p e rso n c o m m its th e o ffe n se o f v o lu nta ry m a n sla u gh te r wh e n h e

c a u se s th e de a th of a n o th e r hu m a n b e in g u n d e r c irc u msta n c e s

wh ic h wo u ld o th e rwise b e mu rd e r a n d if h e a c ts so le ly a s th e re su lt

o f a su d d 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 p e rso n

[a n d th e re wa s n o ] in te rv a l b e twe e n th e p ro vo c a tio n a n d th e k illin g

su ffic ie nt fo r th e v o ic e o f re a so n a n d h um a n ity to b e h e a rd

.

2 We a lso n ote th a t th is c a se do e s n o t in v o lv e a n im p e rm issib le “ m

u tu a lly

e x c lu siv e ” v e rd ic t, “ w h e re a d e fe nd a n t is c o nv ic te d o f two c rim e s, wh e re a

g u ilty v e rd ic t o n o n e c o u n t lo g ic a lly e x c lu d e s a fin d in g o f g u ilt on th e o th e r.”

(Em p h a sis su pp l i ed

. ) S ta te v

. S p rin g e r, 29 7 G a

. 3 7 6

, 3 7 8 (7 7 4 S E2 d 1 0 6 )

(2 0 1 5 ), q u o tin g P o we ll, su p ra

, 4 6 9 U.S

. a t 69 n .8

. Ag a in

, he re we a re a dd re ssin g

a v e rd ic t th a t in v o lv e s a fin d in g o f g uilty a n d n o t g u ilty w ith r e s p e c t to

v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r, a n d n o t two fin d in g s o f g u ilt th a t c a n n o t lo g ic a lly c o

e x ist.

5(Em

p h a sis su p plie d .) In th is re g a rd

, a p er s o n c o m m its th e o ffe n se o f m a lic e

m u rd e r “ wh e n h e u n la w fu lly a n d with m a lic e a fo re th o u g h t, e i t h e r e x p re ss o r

im p lie d

, c a u se s th e de a th o f a n o th e r h u m a n b e in g

. ” OCGA § 1 6 -5 -1 (a ). Ma lic e

a fo re th o u g h t re q u ire s a n e x p re ss o r im p lie d in te n t to k ill. S e e OCGA § 1 6 -5 -1

(b ). Th u s, th e “ c irc u m sta n c e s wh ic h wo u ld o th e rwise b e [m a lic e ] m u rd e r” b u t

fo r th e ne c e ssa ry p ro v o c a tio n th a t wo u ld re d u c e th e o ff e n s e t o v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r wo u ld c o n sist o f a d e fe n d a nt a c tin g with th e in te n t to k ill a n o th e r

p e rso n

. Ac c ord in g ly

, in o rd e r fo r a p e rso n to b e fo u n d g u ilty o f v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m a lic e m u rd e r, th a t p e rso n m

u st a c t

with th e in te n t to k ill, b u t m ust a lso h a v e ta k e n h is o r h e r a c tio n s “ a s th e re su lt

o f a su d d 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 p e rso n .” OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2

.

Ho we v e r, m a lic e m

u rd e r is n o t th e o nly m a n n e r in wh ic h a d e fe n d a n t m a y

c o m m it th e c rim e of m

urd e r. Th e re is a lso fe lo ny m u rd e r, wh ic h re q u ire s o n ly

th a t a d e fe n d a n t, wh ile “ in th e c o m m issio n of a fe lo n y

. . . c a u se [] th e d e a th o f

a n o th e r hu m a n b e in g irre sp e c tiv e o f ma lic e

. ” (Em

p ha sis su p p lie d .) O CGA § 1 6

-

5 -1 (c ). A d e fe nd a nt ne e d n o t a c t with a n in te n t to k ill a t th e tim e th a t h e o r sh e

6to o k th e a c tio n s th a t le d to th e v ic tim ’s de a th

. K n ig h t v

. S ta te

, 2 7 1 Ga

. 5 5 7

, 5 5 9

(2 ) (5 2 1 S E 2d 8 1 9 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (“ Th e p re se n c e o r a b se n c e o f m a lic e is irre le v a n t to

c o m m is s i o n o f f

e l o n y m u r d e r ” )

. T h e d e fe n d a n t n e e d o n ly c om m it th e u n d e rly in g

fe lo ny th a t is in te gra l to

, a n d le a d s to

, th e v ic tim ’s d e a th

. S e e Wa lla c e v

. S ta te

,

2 9 4 Ga

. 2 5 7 (2 ) (7 5 4 S E2 d 5 ) (2 0 1 3 ). Th u s, u nlik e th e c rim e o f m a lic e m u rd e r,

th e n e c e ssa ry p ro v o c a tio n th a t wo u ld m itig a te th e “ c irc u m sta n c e s wh ic h wo u ld

o th e rwise b e [fe lo ny ] m

u rd e r” in o rd e r to re d uc e t h a t o ffe n se to v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r h a s n o th i n g to d o with a d e fe n d a nt’s p u rp orte d in te n t to k ill. In

th is c o n n e c tio n

, to th e e xte n t th a t Wa lk e r v

. S ta te

, 25 8 Ga

. 4 43 (5 ) (3 7 0 S E2 d

1 4 9 ) (1 9 8 8 ) ca n b e r e a d to su p p o rt th e p ro p ositio n th a t in te nt to k ill is a n

e sse n tia l e le m e n t o f v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c l u d e d offe n se o f

fe lo ny m u rd e r, it is o ve rru le d

.

In sh o rt, a d e fe n d a nt mu st h a v e a n in te n t to k ill in ord e r fo r v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r to se rv e a s a p o te n tia l le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m a lic e m u rd e r,

b u t n e e d n o t h a v e a n y in te n t to k ill fo r v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r to m itig a te th e

c irc u m sta n c e s th a t wo uld o th e r w i se c o n stitu te fe lo n y m u rd e r. Be c a

use o f th is

fu n d a m e n ta l d iffe re n c e b e twe e n fe lo n y mu r d e r a n d m a lic e m u rd e r, v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m a lic e m u rd e r c a nn ot b e se e n a s th e

7sa m e c rim e a s v o lu nta ry m a n sla u g h te r a s a l e s s e r in c lu d e d o ffe nse o f fe lo n y

m u rd e r. Fo r th is re a so n

, th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls c orre c tly c on c lu d e d th a t th e ju ry ’s

v e rd ic t in th is c a se d id n o t a m o u n t t o a r ep u g na n t v e rd ic t in wh ic h Ca rte r h a d

b e e n fo un d g u ilty a nd n o t g u ilty o f th e sa m e o ffe n se

.

Ho we v e r, th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls th e n we n t o n to a tte m p t to e x pla in th e

m a n n e r in wh ic h th e ju ry m a y h a v e re a c h e d its v e rd ic t, sta tin g th a t

[t] h e j ury c o u ld h a v e d e te rm in e d th a t Ca rte r fire d a t th e

c o -d e fe n d a n ts so le ly a s th e re su lt o f a su d d e n

, v i o l e n t, a n d

irre sistib le p a ssio n re su ltin g fro m th e c o -d e f e n d a n ts’ p ro v o c a tiv e

a c t of sh o o tin g a t h im

, th us m itig a tin g h is o ffe n se a n d r e n d e rin g

h im g u ilty o f v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu de d offe n se

o f fe lo n y m

u rd e r. Alo n g th o se l i n e s, th e ju ry c o uld a lso h a v e

lo g ic a lly fo u n d th a t Ca rte r wa s no t g u ilty o f m a lic e m urd e r b e c a

u se

h e d id n o t in te nd to k

ill th e v ic tim

, a n d wa s n o t g u ilty o f v o lu nta ry

m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m a lic e m u rd e r

b e c a u se th e v ic tim d id

n o t p ro v o k

e h im to a c t

.

(Em p h a sis su p p lie d

. ) Ca rte r v

. S ta te

, 3 3 1 Ga

. Ap p

. 2 1 2

, 2 19 (3 ) (7 70 S E2 d 2 9 5 )

(2 0 1 5 ). Th e Co u rt of Ap p e a ls’ re a so n i n g is fla we d

. A s e x p la in e d m o re fu lly

a b o v e

, th e p ro v o c a tio n th a t m itig a te s th e c rim e o f m a lic e m urd e r g o e s d ire c tly

to th e de fe n d a n t’s in te n t to kill. If th e re is n o in te n t to k ill, th e d e fe n d a nt h a s n o t

e n g a g e d in a n a c t “ wh ic h w o u ld o th e rwise be [ ma l i c e ] m u rd e r” b u t fo r th e

p ro v o c a tio n to re d u c e th e o ffe n se to v o lu nta ry m a n slau g h te r. O n c e it h a s b e e n

8d e te rm in e d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a d n o in te n t to k ill, th e re is n o m a lic e m u rd e r to

b e mi t i g a t e d b y e v id e n c e of p ro v oc a tio n

, a n d th e q u e stio n o f v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h t e r a s a

le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe nse o f m a lic e m u rd e r c o uld n o t e v e n b e

re a c h e d

. In th is re g a rd

, a v ic tim ’s a lle g e d p ro v o c a tio n o f a d e fe n d a n t wh o a c ts

with no i n t e n t to k ill wo u ld b e irre le va n t to an y d e te rm in a tio n o f th a t

d e fe n d a n t’s g u ilt on a c ha rg e o f v o lu n ta ry m a n sla ug h t e r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d

o ffe n se o f m a lic e m

urd e r. A c c o rd in gly

, we d isa p p ro v e th a t p o rtio n o f th e Co urt

o f Ap pe a ls’ o p in io n w h ic h im p lie s th a t a d e fe n da n t c o uld b e fo u n d g u ilty o f

v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m a lic e m urd e r wh e re th a t

d e fe n d a n t h a s n o t a c te d with a n in te n t to k ill.

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

9