SECOND DI VI SI ON

A NDREWS, P. J.

, M C F A D DEN and RA

Y, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s /

Febr uar y 11, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 4 A2 07 3 . HOW ELL v

. THE STATE.

A1 4 A2 07 4 . HOW ELL v

. THE STATE.

R A Y , J u d g e.

In t wo i n di ct m e n t s

, Th ad d eu s Oct av i u s Ho wel l was ch arg ed wi t h v ari ou s

o ffen s es i n v o l v i ng act s of d o m es t i c v i o l en ce. T h e i n d i ct m en t s w ere l a t e r jo i n ed by

co n sen t an d t ri ed t o g et her i n a s i ng l e ju ry tri al

. H o w e l l was co n v ict ed o f fal s e

i m p ri s o n m en t (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -4 1 ), fam i l y v i o l e n ce b at t ery (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 .1 (a),

(f)), i nt erferen ce wi t h a 9 1 1 cal l (OCGA § 1 6-1 0 -2 4 .3 ), s i m p l e b at tery o n a p o l i ce

o ffi cer (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 (a), (e)), an d o b s t ru ct i o n o f a l aw en f o r c e m en t o ffi cer

(OCGA § 1 6-1 0- 2 4 ) u n d er th e fi rs t i n d ict m en t

, an d h e was co n v ict ed o f fam i l y

v i o l en ce b at tery (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 .1 (a), (f)), ag g rav at ed as s au l t (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 1

(b ) (2 )), an d fal s e i m

p r i s o n m en t (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -4 1) u n d er t h e seco n d i n d i ct m en t

.Ho wel l n o w b ri n g s t wo i d en t i cal ap peal s fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n

fo r n ew t ri al

, co n t en d i n g th at t h e t ri al co urt erred (1 ) i n p erm i t t i n g t h e co u rt rep o rt er

t o t es t ify at t he t ri al o v er h i s o b j e c t i o n an d (2 ) in ch arg i n g t h e ju ry on ag g rav at ed

as s au l t

. Fi n d i ng n o rev ers i bl e e rro r, we affi rm Ho wel l ’ s co nv i ct i o ns i n Cas e No

.

A1 4 A2 07 3 an d d is m i s s t h e i d en t i cal ap p eal as red u n d an t i n Cas e No . A1 4 A2 0 74

.

On ap p eal fro m a cri m i n al co n v i c t i o n, t he d efen d an t no l o ng er en jo y s t h e

p res u m p t i o n o f i n n o c en ce, an d we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g ht m os t fav o rab l e to

s u p p ort t h e ju r y’s v erd i ct

. W eeks v. S t a t e

, 3 1 6 Ga. A pp

. 4 4 8

, 4 4 9 (7 2 9 SE2 d 5 7 0 )

(2 0 1 2).

Th e ev i den ce sh o wed t h at o n t h e m o rn i n g o f Decem ber 4

, 2 0 1 0

, Dawn Cl o u d

was p rep ari n g t o l eav e h er h ou s e wh en Ho wel l

, wh o was Cl o u d ’ s l i v e-i n b o y fri en d

at th e t i m e, cam e h o m e an d an arg u m en t en s u ed

. W h en Cl o u d as k ed H o wel l t o l eav e,

h e s t ru ck Cl o u d i n t h e b ack o f her h ead

, p u t h er i n a h ead l o ck

, an d ch o k ed h er t o t h e

p o i n t t h at s h e co ul d n o l o ng er b reat h e

. C l o u d at t em p t ed t o cal l 91 1

, b u t Ho wel l

s n at ch ed t h e ph o n e away fro m h er an d b ro k e i t in t o pi eces o n t h e fl o o r. Aft er Cl o u d

p res s ed t h e p an ic b u t t o n o n h er car k ey s t o act i v at e h er v eh i cl e’ s h o rn al arm

, Ho wel l

p i ck ed h er u p an d “ b o d y -s l am m ed ” h er o n t o t h e fl o o r, wres tl i ng th e k ey s fr o m h er

h an ds

. Cl o u d at t em

pt ed t o g et a way

, b ut Ho wel l ph y s ical l y res t rai n ed h er an d s ai d

2“ y ou ’ re n o t g o i n g an y wh ere.” D u ri n g t h e i n ci d en t

, Cl o u d s us t ai n ed v i s i b le i n ju ri es

,

i n cl u d i n g s crat ch es t o h er h an d s an d arm s an d red m ark s o n h er n eck

.

Cl o u d was l at er al l o wed t o l eav e t he res i d en ce, an d s h e i m m ed i at el y cal l ed t h e

p o l i ce. T h e p o li ce o ffi cers wh o res p o n d ed t o t h e s cen e o b s erv ed Cl o u d ’ s i n ju ri es an d

o b t ai n ed s t at em en t s fro m b o th o f t h e part i es

. Ho w el l ad m it t ed t h at h e an d Cl o u d h ad

b een i n a p hy s i cal al t ercat i on t h at m o rn i n g

, b u t h e co u l d no t ex p lai n h o w Cl o u d h ad

recei v ed h er i n

j u r i e s

. W h en t h e o ffi cers ad v i s ed Ho wel l t h at h e was un d er arres t

,

Ho wel l res i s ted an d g o t i n t o a p h y s i cal al t er c a t io n wi t h t he o ffi cers

, ev en t u al l y

k i c ki n g o n e o f t h em

. T h e o ffi cers were ab l e t o s u b d u e Ho wel l wi th a t as er, a n d h e

was h an d cu ffed an d p laced u n d er arres t.

Th e ev i den ce at tri a l fu rt h er s h o w ed t h at i n J an uary 2 0 1 2 H o wel l b ecam e

i n v o l v ed i n a ro m an t i c rel at i o n s h i p w i t h Lau ren Ho l l oway

, ev en t ual l y m o v i n g i n wi th

h er. Al th o u g h Ho l l o w a y l a t er en d ed t h e rel at i o n sh i p

, s h e m ai n t ai n ed co n t act wi th

Ho wel l

, an d Ho wel l k ep t a k ey t o h er res i den ce.

On t h e n i g h t o f Ap ri l 1 9

, 2 0 1 2

, Ho l l o w ay acco m p an i ed Ho wel l t o a m em o ri al

s erv i ce fo r o n e o f h is fri en d s wh o h ad d ied in a m o t o rcy cl e acci d en t

. Aft erward s

, t h ey

ret u rn ed t o Ho l lo way ’ s res i d en ce. In t he earl y m o rn i n g h o urs o f Ap ri l 2 0

, 2 0 1 2,

Ho l lo way i n fo rm ed Ho wel l t h a t s h e d i d n ot w an t t o b e wi t h h i m an y m ore; s h e t o ld

3h i m t o gat h e r t h e res t o f hi s cl o t h i n g an d pers o n al effect s t h at rem ai n ed i n t h e

res i den ce an d t o g et o u t

. Ho wel l b ecam e u p s e t a n d p u s h ed h er, ch as ed her t h ro u g h

t h e h o u se, p u s h ed h er i n to a wal l

, g rab b ed h er an d t h r e w h er o n t h e fl o o r, an d

p u n ch ed h er i n t h e face wi t h h i s fi s t

.

Aft er Ho wel l l eft

, H o l lo way cal l ed t h e p o li ce t o rep o rt t h e at t ack

. W h en t h e

res p o n d in g o ffi cers arri v ed

, Ho l l o way t o l d t h em wh at h ad h ap pen ed

, an d th e o ffi cers

t o o k p ho t o g rap h s o f h er i n ju ri es

. 1

Ho wel l k n ew t h at Ho l lo w ay h ad co n t act ed t he po l i ce, an d h e s en t s ev eral t ex t

m es s ag es t o Ho ll o way t o t el l h er t h at h e l o v ed h er. He l at er co n t act ed H o l l o way to

as k h er wh at s h e h ad t o l d t h e p o l i ce.

On t h e m o rn i n g o f Ap ri l 3 0

, 2 0 1 2

, Ho ll o way w as as l eep o n t h e co u ch i n h er

h o m e wh en s h e awo k e t o fi nd Ho wel l o n t o p of h er. W h en Ho l l o w ay go t u p to u s e t h e

b at h ro o m

, Ho w el l s t o o d ou t s i d e th e b at h ro o m d oo r an d as k ed h er wh at s h e was

d o i n g

, s p eci fi cal l y as k i n g h er i f s h e was cal l i n g t h e p o l i ce. W h en s h e o p e n e d t h e

d o o r, Ho wel l ag ai n as k ed h er “ W h at d i d y o u d o ? Di d y o u cal l t h e p o l i ce? ”

Ho l l oway t h en wen t t o h er li v i n g ro o m t o l oo k fo r h er k ey s s o t h at s h e co u ld

l eav e. As s he was o p en i n g t h e fro n t d o o r, Ho wel l cam e u p b eh i nd h er an d s t ru ck h er

1 Ph o t o g rap h s o f h er v i s ib l e i n ju ri es were ad m i t t ed i n t o ev i d en ce at t ri al

.

4o n t h e s i d e o f h er h ead wi t h a h an d g u n

, k n o ck i ng h er d o w n

. Ho wel l t h en g rab b ed h er,

p u s h ed h er o n to t he co u ch

, p u t t h e g u n t o her h ead

, an d t o l d h er n o t to s cream

. Aft er

t h e s i t u a t i o n cal m ed do wn

, Ho l l o way was ab l e t o g et u p an d g o t o t h e b at h ro o m t o

ch eck o n h er h ead w o un d

, wh i ch w as s wo l l en an d b leed i n g

. Ho w el l fo l l o wed

Ho l lo way to t h e b at hro om t o ap o l o g i ze, an d Ho l l o way b eg g ed h im t o “ p l eas e g et o ut

b efo re y o u k i l l m e fo r real .”

H o w el l ev en tu al l y l eft t h e res i d en ce, an d Ho l lo way i m m ed iat el y wen t t o t h e

p o l i ce s t at i o n t o rep o rt t h e at tack

. Ph o t o g rap hs were t ak en o f her h ead i n ju ry

, wh i ch

were ad m i t t ed i n t o ev i d en ce at t r i a l

. Fo l l o wi n g t h i s i n ci d en t

, Ho wel l co n t i n u ed to

co n tact h er t o tel l h er t h at h e l ov ed h er.

In a su bs eq u en t i n ci d en t, Ho w el l was fo l lo wi n g Ho l lo way i n h i s v eh i cl e wh en

h e p u l l ed u p al on g s i d e Ho l lo w ay ’ s car, p o i nt ed a g u n at h er, an d d em an d ed t h at s h e

p u l l o v er. Ho l l o w ay s l am m ed o n h er b rak es

, t u rn ed h er car aro un d

, an d d ro v e away

i n t h e o pp o s i te d i rect i o n

. H o w el l m an ag ed t o cat ch u p to Ho l l o way an d s i d e-s wi p ed

h er car. Aft er b l ock i n g h er car t o p rev en t her fro m d ri v in g away, Ho wel l b eg an

s h o o ti n g at Ho l l o way ’ s car. Al th o u g h Ho l l o way was n o t s t ru ck b y an y o f t h e b u l l et s

,

s h e d i d s us t ai n i n

ju ri es fro m t h e b ro k en g l as s

. Ho wel l th en d ro v e away i n h i s v eh i cl e,

5an d Ho l l o w ay cal l ed 9 1 1. 2 Ph o t o g rap h s d ep i ct in g h er in ju ri es an d h er dam ag ed car

were i nt ro d u ced at t ri al

. Al t h o u g h Ho ll o way ob t ai n ed a p ro t ect i v e o r d e r a g ai n s t

Ho l lo way t h e day aft er t h is in ci d en t

, h e co n t i n u ed t o cal l h er fro m jai l to p ro fes s h i s

l o v e fo r h er.

In ad d i t i o n t o t h e ab o ve ev i d en ce, t h e St at e i n t ro d u ced si m i lar t ran s act i o n

ev i d en ce fro m t h ree o t h er wo m en t o es t ab l i sh t hat Ho wel l h ad a p a t t ern o f

co m m i t t i n g v i o l en ce ag ai n s t wo m en

.

1 . Du ri n g t h e t ri al , t h e t ri al co u rt t o ok a reces s d u ri n g Ho l l o w ay ’ s t es t i m o n y

.

Befo re t h e ju ry cam e b ack i n t o t h e co u rt ro o m t o co n t i n u e w it h h er t es ti m o n y

, t h e

co u rt rep o rt er o b s erv ed Ho wel l s i len t l y “ m o u t h ” t h e wo rd s “ I l o v e y o u ” t o Ho l l o way

,

wh o was s i t t i n g on t h e wi t n es s s t an d

. Lat er, du ri n g cro s s -ex am i n at io n o f Ho wel l

, t h e

St at e as k ed h i m i f h e h ad d on e s o

, an d Ho wel l d en i ed i t

. Th e t ri al co u rt t h en al l o wed

t h e S t a t e t o cal l th e co u rt rep o rt er t o t es ti fy as a reb u t t al wi t n es s o ver Ho wel l ’ s

o b ject i on

. 3 On ap p eal

, Ho wel l arg u es t hat t h e t ri al co u rt erred wh en i t p erm i t t ed t h e

co u rt r e p o rt er t o t es t i fy fo r t h e St at e. Sp eci fi cal l y

, he co n ten d s t h at (i ) t h e co u rt

2 In t h e t ri al at i s s u e h ere, Ho w el l was n o t b ei n g p ro s ecu t ed fo r an y o ffen s es

t h at o ccu rred d u ri n g t h i s i n ci d en t

.

3 An o t h er co urt rep o rt er was cal l ed i n t o t ak e d o w n t h i s t es t i m o n y

.

6rep o rt er’ s t es t i m o n y co n st i t u t ed i m p ro p er i m peach m en t o n a co l la te r a l m a tter, an d (i i )

t h at al l o w i n g t h e co u rt rep o rt er t o t es t i fy i m p act ed t h e i n t eg ri t y an d i m p art ial i t y o f t h e

p ro ceed in g s . W e fi nd h i s arg um en t s t o b e u n p ers u as i v e.

(a) As an i n i t i al m at t er, we n o t e t h at Ho wel l rai s ed i n h is bri ef th e ad d i t i o n al

arg u m en t t h at t h e S t a t e ’s q u es t i o n i n g o f H o wel l w i t h reg ard t o h is si len t ges t u re to

Ho l lo way du ri n g t h e reces s was i m pro p er b ecau s e i t ex ceed e d t h e s co p e o f cro s s

ex am i n at i o n

. Ho wev er, Ho wel l d i d n o t rai s e t hi s i s s u e as an en u m erat io n o f erro r o n

ap p eal . Th erefo re, t o t he ex ten t h e i s ch al l en g in g t he St at e’ s cro s s-ex am i n at i o n , h i s

arg u m en t p ro v i d es no b as i s fo r ap p el l at e rev i ew. See B ro wn v. S t a t e

, 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p.

8 3 5

, 8 3 5

, n

. 1 (7 14 S E 2 d 3 9 5 ) (2 0 1 1) (p ro v i d in g t hat a p art y can no t ex p an d h i s

en u m e r a t i o n s o f erro r th ro u gh arg u m en t o r ci tat i o n i n h i s b ri ef, an d cl ai m s n ot

en u m erat ed as erro r wi l l n o t b e rev i ewed ).

(b ) Ho wel l co n t en d s t hat t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n al l o wi n g t he co u rt rep o rt er to

t es t i fy as a reb u t t al w i t n e s s

, arg u i n g t hat t h e tes t i m on y co ns t i t u t ed i m p ro p er

i m p each m en t o n a co l l at eral m at t er. W e d i s ag ree.

Al t h ou g h a wi t n es s m ay n o t b e i m peach ed b e cau s e of a d is crep an cy i n h i s

t es t i m o ny reg ard i n g a m at t er t h a t i s wh o ll y i rrel ev an t t o t h e cas e, a wi t n es s m ay b e

i m p each ed ab o u t a co l l at eral i s s u e t h at i s i n d irect l y m at eri al to t h e cas e. See Mo o d y

7v. S t a t e

, 2 7 9 Ga. Ap p

. 4 4 0, 4 4 5 (5 ) (6 3 1 SE2 d 4 8 5 ) (2 0 06 ). If t h e j u ry b el i ev ed t h at

Ho wel l t o l d Ho ll o way t h at h e lo v ed h er ju s t b efo re sh e res u m ed h er t es t i m o n y

, t h e

ju ry co u l d i n fer t h at Ho wel l had i n t en d ed t o i nfl u en ce h er t es ti m o n y

. 4 It is wel l -s et t l ed

t h at “ ev i d en ce o f a d efen d an t ’ s at t em p t t o i n fl u en ce o r i n t i m id at e a wi t n es s can s erv e

as ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce o f g u i l t .” (Ci t at i o n s o m i t ted .) Kel l v. St a t e

, 2 8 0 Ga. 6 6 9,

6 7 1 (2 ) (a) (6 3 1 SE2 d 6 7 9 ) (2 0 0 6 ). Un d er t h e p art icu l ar ci rcu m s t an ces pres en t ed in

t h i s cas e, t h e i s s u e o f wh et h er Ho wel l m ad e su ch a g es t u r e t o Ho l l o way was n ot

m erel y co l l at eral

, b ut was arg u ab l y rel ev an t t o t h e i s s ue o f g ui l t

. Th erefo re, t h e co u rt

rep o rt er’ s t es t i m o n y

o n t h i s i s s u e was n o t i m

p ro p er.

Ho wel l al s o arg u es t h e co u rt rep o rt er’ s i m p each m en t t es t i m o n y was i n h eren t l y

p reju d i ci al b ecau s e h e was p recl u d ed b y l aw fro m cal li n g t h e ju d g e an d / o r t h e b ai l i ff

as wi tn es s es t o reb u t t h e co u rt rep o rt er’ s t es t i m o ny

. Ho wev e r

, Ho w el l h as fai l ed to

es t ab l i s h p reju di ce b ecau se h e h as n o t s h o w n t h at t h e ju d g e o r t he b ai l i ff p o s s es s ed

k n o wl ed g e o f fact s th at co u l d h av e refu t ed t h e co u rt rep ort er’ s t es t i m o n y

. M o reo v er,

4 W e reco gn i ze th at a p ers o n ’ s u s e o f t h e p h ras e “ I l o ve y o u ” d o es n ot

n eces s ari l y m ean t h at t h e p ers o n has an o m in ou s o r u l t eri o r m o ti v e fo r m ak i n g s u ch

a s t at em en t

. In d eed

, th i s t y p e o f g es t u re i s a s h o w of affect io n t h at i s t y p i cal l y wel l

recei v e d

. Ho wev er, b ecau s e Ho wel l d en ied m ak i n g s u ch a s eem i n g l y i n n o cu ou s

g es t u re, a reas o n ab le i n feren ce co u l d b e d rawn th at h e h ad an u l t eri or m ot i v e fo r

m ak i n g i t -- i

. e., t h at h e h ad i n t en d ed t o i n fl u en ce h er t es t i m o n y

.

8Ho wel l has n ot s h own th at t h ere were n o o t her wi t n es s es i n th e co urt ro o m wh o co u ld

h av e t es t i fi ed o r t h at h e was precl u d ed fro m cal l i n g an y

o t h er wi t n es ses i n reb u t t al

.

(c) Las t ly

, Ho wel l co n t en d s t h at al lo wi n g t h e co u rt rep o rt er to tes t i fy o n b eh al f

o f t h e St at e erad i cat ed t h e i n t eg ri t y an d fu n d am en t al fai rn es s o f t h e t ri al

. W e fi n d n o

rev ers i bl e erro r.

Ho wel l ci tes S la kma n v. S t a t e

, 2 7 2 Ga. 6 6 2 (5 3 3 SE2 d 3 8 3 ) (2 0 0 0 ), fo r t h e

p ro p os i t i on t h at a co u rt rep ort er s h o u l d n o t b e al l o wed t o tes t ify as a wi t nes s i n an y

p ro ceed in g i n wh i ch s h e i s al s o s erv i n g as t h e o ffi ci al t ran s cri b er o f wi t n es s t es t i m o ny

b e c au s e t h e ju ry wo u l d au t o m at i cal l y p ercei v e h er as a cred i b l e wi t n es s

. Ho w e v e r

,

o u r Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s h o l di n g i n S l a kma n d i d n o t p ai n t t hi s i s s u e wi t h s u ch a b ro ad

b ru s h

.

In S l a kma n , t h e d efen d an t , wh o was o n t ri al fo r m u rd eri n g h i s wi fe, m ad e an

al l eg ed co n fes s i o n ou t s i d e t h e p res en ce o f th e j u ry d u ri n g a reces s i n t h e pro ceed i n g s

.

Al t h o u g h t h e d efen dan t ’ s s t at em en t was no t t ran scri b ed

, i t was o v erh eard by t h e co u rt

rep o rt er an d cap t u r ed on h er au d i o t ap e. As th ere was a leg i t i m at e fact u al d i s p u t e

ab o ut t h e co n t en t s o f t he d efen d an t ’ s s t at em en t , t he co urt rep ort er w as perm i t t ed t o

t es t i fy as t o t he i ncu l p at o ry v ers i o n o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s s t at em en t w h i ch s h e p ers o n al l y

h eard

, an d s h e t h en t es t i fi ed t h at h er au d i o t ap e “ v eri fi ed ” th at v ers i o n

. Th ereaft er, t h e

9au d io t ap e was p l ay ed fo r t h e ju ry. I d

. a t 6 6 4 -6 65 (2 ). In rev ers i n g t h e d efen d an t ’ s

co n vi ct i o n

, ou r Su p rem e Co urt fo u n d th at “ b e c a u s e t h ere was an au d i o t ap e o f [t h e

d efen d an t ’ s] s t at em en t fro m w h i ch t h e ju ry co u l d m ak e i t s o wn d et erm i n at i o n o f wh at

h ad been s ai d

, t h e co u rt rep o rt er s h o u l d no t h av e b een p erm i t ted t o tes t ify as t o wh at

s h e h eard o r t o tes ti fy t h at t h e au dio t ap e ‘ v eri fi ed ’ h er t es t i m o n y .” (Fo o t no t e o m i t t ed .)

Id

. at 6 6 5 (2 ). Th e Co u rt fu rt h er fo u n d t h at t h e erro r was n ot h arm les s

, co n s i d eri n g

t h e ju ry ’ s p ers pect i v e o f t h e cap aci t y i n w h i ch t h e co u rt rep o rt er s erv ed at t h e t ri al in

co n ju n ct i o n wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s u t t er fai l u re “ [ t o ] i n s t ru ct t h e ju ry t hat i t was to

d et erm i n e fo r i ts el f w h at was reco rd ed o n t he au d i o t ap e o r t h e m an ner in wh i ch i t was

t o res o l ve an y d i s crep an ci es b et ween t h e co u rt rep ort er’ s t es ti m o ny an d th e co n t en t s

o f t h e au d i ot ap e.” Id . at 6 6 5 -6 6 6 (2 ).

Here, b y co n t ras t

, t h ere was n o reco rd i n g o f Ho wel l ’ s g es tu re t o H o l l o way fo r

t h e j u ry to ev al uat e. Fu rt h e r m o r e

, t h e co u rt rep o rt er di d n o t i m pro p erl y b ol s t er h er

o wn tes t i m o n y ; s h e m erel y t es t ifi ed th at s h e h ad o b s erv ed H o wel l “ m o ut h ” t h e wo rd s

“ I l o v e y o u ” t o Ho l l o way d u ri n g t h e reces s

. Mo st i m p o rt a n t l y, t h e t ri al co u rt

i n s t ru ct ed th e j u ry t h at i t was t o d et erm i n e th e cred i b il i ty o f th e co u rt rep o rt er o n t h e

s am e b as i s as an y o th er wi t n es s

. Bas ed on th es e fact s

, we b el i ev e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt

10act ed p ro p erl y wi t h in it s d i s cret i o n i n al l o wi n g t h e co u rt rep o rt er t o t es t i fy 5

. Ev en i f

i t was erro r t o al l o w t h e t es t i m o n y

, s u ch erro r was h arm l es s i n l i g h t o f t h e

o v erwh el m i ng ev i d en ce o f Ho wel l’ s g u i l t

.

2

. Ho wel l co n t en ds t h at t h e t ri al co urt erred i n ch arg i ng t h e ju ry o n ag g rav at ed

as s au l t wh en i t i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry t h at a han d g u n is a d ead l y weap o n as a m at t er o f

l aw an d fai l ed t o in s tru ct th e ju ry t h at t h e i s s u e o f wh et h er t he h an d g u n co ns t i t u t ed

a d ead ly weap on i n t hi s cas e was s o lel y a m at t er fo r i t s co n s i derat i o n. As Ho wel l ’ s

t r i a l c o u n s el d i d n o t rai s e an o b ject i o n t o th e tri al co u rt ’ s ch arg e, “ th e m at t er i s

s u b ject o n l y to p l ai n erro r rev i ew o n ap p eal .” (Ci t at i o ns o m i t ted .) Gi ven s v. S t a t e

, 2 9 4

Ga. 2 6 4

, 2 6 6 (2 ) (7 5 1 SE2 d 7 78 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (ci tat i o n s o m i t t ed ). See OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 8

(b ).

In o rd er t o rev ers e on t h e b as i s o f p l ai n erro r i n t h i s cas e, Ho wel l m u st s at i s fy

t h e b urd en o f es tab l i s hi n g al l of t h e fo l l o wi n g el em en t s: th at th e ch arg e (o r t h e fai l u re

t o ch arg e) w as erro n eo u s ; th at t he erro r was o b vi o us ; an d t h at t he erro r l ik el y affect ed

t h e o u tco m e o f h i s tri al

. See Jo h n so n v. S t a t e , 2 9 5 Ga. 6 1 5 , 6 1 7-6 1 8 (2 ) (7 5 9 SE2 d

8 3 7 ) (2 0 14 ); S

ha w v. S t a t e

, 29 2 Ga. 8 7 1

, 8 7 3 ( 2 ) ( 7 4 2 SE2 d 7 0 7 ) (2 0 1 3 ); S t a t e v.

5 As J us ti ce Hu n s t ei n s i m i l arl y p o i n t ed o u t in her d is se n t i n S l a ckma n

, s u p ra

at 6 7 3

, it was (t h e Defen d an t ’ s ) o wn b eh av i or in u t t eri n g t h e s t at em en t in (t h e co u rt

rep o rt er’ s ) p res en ce wh ich cau s ed h er t o b e a wi t n es s

.

11Kel l

y

, 29 0 Ga. 2 9

, 3 3 (2 ) (a) (7 1 8 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 01 1 ). If Ho wel l es t ab l i sh es al l o f t h es e

el em en t s

, we h av e t h e d i s cret i o n t o rev ers e “ i f t h e erro r s eri o u s l y affect s th e fai rn es s

,

i n t e g ri t y o r p u b l i c rep u t at i on o f t h e p ro ceed i n g s b el ow.”(Ci tat i on o m i t t ed .) Kel l y

,

s u p ra. As o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as n o t ed

, “ [s ] at i s fy i n g al l fo u r p ro n g s o f th i s s t an d ard

i s d i ffi cu l t , as i t s ho u l d b e.” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t ted .) Id

.

In t h i s cas e, t he ag g rav at ed as sau l t co u n t o f t h e i n d i ct m en t accu s ed Ho wel l o f

co m m i t t i n g an as s au l t

. . . “ wi t h a d ead l y weap on

, a h an dg u n

, wh en h e s t ru ck Lau ren

Ho l lo way i n t h e h ead wi t h [t h e] h an d g u n [.] ” I n i t s i n s t ru ct i o n to th e ju ry

, t h e t ri al

co u rt co rrect l y ch arg ed th at t h e St at e h ad t he b u rd en o f p ro v in g th e m at eri al el em en t

t h at t h e as s au lt was m ad e wi t h a d ead l y weap o n, as al l eg ed i n t h e in d i ct m en t

.

Ho wev er, t h e tri al co u rt fu rt h er c h a r g ed t h e ju ry t h at “ [a] h an d g u n [,] wh en u s ed as

s u ch [,] i s a d ead l y w eap o n as a m at t er o f l aw.” Th u s

, i t is arg u ed

, t he lat er p o rt i o n o f

t h e ch arg e rel i ev ed th e St at e o f it s b urd en t o p ro v e t h at t h e h an d g un

, wh en i t was u s ed

t o s t ri k e Ho l l o way , co n s t i t u t ed a d ead l y weap o n

.

In Byr d v. S t at e

, 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 2 4 (7 5 2 SE2 d 8 4 ) ( 2 0 1 3 )

, a cas e i n wh i ch t h e

d efen d an t w as s im i l arl y ch arg ed wi t h ag g rav at ed as s au l t fo r st ri ki n g t h e v i ct i m i n t h e

h ead wi t h a h an d g u n

, we fo u n d t h at th e d efen d an t ’ s t ri al co u n s el was i n effect i v e fo r

fai l i n g t o o b

ject to t h e ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n t hat “ [a] f i r e a r m

, wh e n u s ed as s u ch

, i s a

12d ead ly w eap o n as a m at ter o f l aw.” Id

. at 2 7-2 8 (2 ) (a). In s o h o l di n g

, we fo u n d t h at

t h e ch arg e was no t ap pl icab le t o t h e fact s o f t h e cas e b ecau s e t he h an d g u n was n o t

al l eg ed to hav e b een u s ed in t he o rd i nary m an ner i n w h i ch a g u n i s u s ed

— i .e. by

p o i n t i n g th e g u n o r u si n g i t t o sh o o t at so m eo n e; i t was al l eg ed t o h av e b een u s ed as

an ob ject t o st ri k e t h e v ict i m

. Id

. at 2 8 (2 ) (a) In rev ers i n g th e ag g r a v a t e d as s au l t

co n vi ct i o n

, we fo un d t h at t h ere was a reas o nab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

, b u t fo r co u n sel ’ s

erro r, t h e o u t co m e o f t h e t ri al wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t b ecau s e t h ere was ab s o l u t el y

n o ev i d en ce t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h at t h e h an d g u n h ad b een us ed as a d ead l y

weap o n — i .e., no ev i d e n c e of d eg ree o f fo rce us ed

, i n ju ry

, l i kel i h o o d o f i n

ju ry

, o r

ap p reh en s i o n o f i n

ju ry . Id

.

Here, b y co n t ras t

, t h ere was o v e r w h e l m i n g ev i d en ce to es t ab l i s h t h at t h e

h an dg u n co n s t it u t ed a d ead l y weap o n

. Th e ev id en ce was un d i s p u t ed t h at Ho l l o way

was s t ru ck o n t h e s i d e of h er h ead wi t h t h e h an d g u n s o v i o l en t l y t h at it k n o ck ed h er

d o wn an d t h at th e b l o w s h e s us t ai n ed cau s ed th e s id e o f h er h ead t o s wel l an d b l eed

.

M o reo v er, Ho l l o way ’ s p ercep t io n o f t h e d eg ree o f fo rce t h at Ho wel l had u s ed ag ai n s t

h er was ap p aren t b ecau s e s h e i m m ed i at el y b eg g ed h i m t o “ p l eas e g et o u t b efo re y o u

k i l l m e fo r real .” See g en eral l y Or t i z v. S t a t e , 2 9 2 Ga. Ap p

. 3 7 8

, 3 81 (2 ) (6 6 5 SE2 d

3 3 3 ) (2 00 8 ) (wh ere t h e ev i d en ce s h o wed

, w i t ho u t co n fl i ct

, t h at defen d an t s tru ck t h e

13v i ct i m so h ard wi t h a h an d g u n t h at i t cau s ed t h e vi ct i m ’ s h ead an d face to b l eed an d

v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at feared h e wo u l d be k i l l e d

, t h e h an d g u n was p er s e a d ead l y

weap o n ).

Al t h ou g h we ag ree t hat t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ch arg e w o u l d h av e b een erro r i f i t h ad

s t at ed t h at t he u s e o f a g u n i n co m m i t t in g an as s au lt wo u l d al w ay s c o n s t i t u t e an

ag g rav at ed as s au l t, t h i s i t d id n o t d o

. Th e ju ry was t o l d th at th e St at e m u s t p ro v e t h at

t h e as sau l t w as wi t h a d ead ly weap o n an d t h at a han d g u n co ul d b e o n e, d ep en d i n g o n

h o w i t was u s ed

. Th e ju ry was free t o d eci d e ei th er way

. In an y ev en t , ev en i f t h es e

i n s t ru ct i o n s were erro neo u s

, H o w e l l h as fai l ed t o es t ab l is h t h at su ch erro r l i k el y

affect ed t h e o u t co m e o f hi s t ri al

. Kel l y

, s u p ra at 3 3 (2 ) (a). In ot h er wo rd s

, Ho wel l h as

fai l ed t o s h o w t h at

, h ad t h e co rrect ch arg es b een g i v en

, it was l i k el y th at ju ry wo u ld

h av e acq u i t t ed h i m o f t h e ag g rav at ed as s au l t ch arg e. M o reo v er, i n l i g ht o f t h e

o v erwh el m i ng ev i d en ce of Ho wel l ’ s g u il t

, w e f i n d t h at t h e erro r di d n o t s eri o u s l y

affect t h e fai rn es s , i n t eg ri ty o r p u b l i c rep u tat i o n o f t h e p ro ceed i n g s

. 6 Id

.

6 “ Un li k e a h a r m l e s s -erro r an al y s i s

, wh ere t h e ap pel l ee b ears t h e bu rd en o f

s h o wi n g t h at an erro r d i d no t l ik el y affect t h e o u t co m e b el o w, a pl ai n -erro r an al y s i s

r e q u i r e s t h e ap p el l an t t o m ak e an affi rm at iv e s h owi n g t h at t h e erro r p ro b ab l y d i d

affect th e o u t co m e b el ow.” (Ci t at i o n om it t ed .) W a gn er v. S t a t e

, 3 1 1 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 9,

5 9 4

, n

. 3 (7 1 6 SE2 d 6 3 3 ) (2 0 11 ) (Bl ack wel l

, J

., co n cu rri n g s p eci al l y ). “ [T] h e h u rd l e

t o es t ab l i s h i n g p l ai n erro r is h i g h

, . . . an d

. . . t h e fai l u re t o s p eci fi cal l y art i cu l at e h o w

t h e al l eg ed erro r s at i s fi es t h i s h i g h s tan d ard i n creas es t h e l i k el ih o o d t h at . . . cl ai m s

i n t hi s reg ard wi l l b e reject ed .” Kel l y , s u p ra at 3 2 (1 ), n . 2

.

14As Ho wel l h as fai l ed t o s at i s fy t h e th i rd an d fo u r t h p ro n g s o f t h e pl ai n erro r

an al y s i s s et fo rt h i n Kel ly

, s u p ra an d i ts p ro g en y , we fi nd n o rev ers i b l e erro r.

3

. In Cas e No

. A1 4 A2 0 74

, Ho wel l as sert s t h e s am e erro rs as t h o s e as s ert ed in

Cas e No

. A1 4A2 0 7 3

. W e t h erefo re d i s m i s s Cas e No . A1 4 A2 0 7 4 as red u n d an t . See

F ir s t S o u t h er n Ba n k v. C & F S

er vi ces

, In c.

, 2 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 0 5

, 3 0 9 ( 5 ) ( 6 5 9 S E2 d

7 0 7 ) (2 0 0 8 ).

Ju d g men t af f i r med i n Ca s e No

. A1 4A2 0 7 3

, a n d Ca s e No

. A 1 4 A2 0 7 4 i s

d i s mi s s ed . An d

r ews , P. J., a n d

McFa d d en , J., co n cu r

.

15