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 2 2 , 2 0 1 4

S 1 4 A0 8 0 8. RODRIGUEZ-NOVA v

. THE S TATE.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

An d re s Lu is Ro d rig u e z -No v a wa s trie d b y a Gwin n e t t C o u n ty ju ry a n d

c o n v ic te d o f m

u rd e r a n d fa lse im

p riso n m e n t, bo th in c o n n e c tio n with th e d e a th

o f h is g irlfrie n d
, Elb a Me

jia -Me sa

. R o d

r i g u e z

- N o v a a

p p e a l s , c o n te n d in g th a t th e

tria l c o u rt e rre d with re sp e c t to b o th a n e v id e n tia ry ru lin g an d its in stru c tio n s to

th e ju ry

. He a lso c o n te n d s th a t h e wa s d e n ie d th e e ffe c tiv e a ssista nc e o f c o u n se l.

Up o n o ur re v ie w o f th e re c o rd a nd b rie fs, we se e n o e rro r, a n d we a ffirm

. 1

1 T he crim es were com m i tted on June 22, 2008. R o d r i g uez-Nova was indicted on Septem ber 4, 2008 and c harged with m alice m urder, two c o unts of f

elony m u rder, aggravated assault, aggravated battery , and f alse im prisonm ent. His trial com m enced on S eptem ber 8, 2009, and the jur y r e t u r n e d its verdict three d ay s later, f inding him guilty on all counts. Rodriguez-Nova was sentenced to im prisonm e nt f

or lif e f or m alice m

urder and a consecutive
term o f i m

prisonm ent f

or ten y ears f

or f alse im p risonm ent. The verdict as to f elony m urder

was vacated by operation of law, Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 371-372 (4) (434 SE2d 479) (1993), and the rem aining c o u n t s m erged with the m alice m urder. R odriguez-Nova tim ely f iled a m otion f

or new trial on Septem

ber 14, 2009, and he am ended it on O ctober 26, 2011. The trial court denied the m otion on Decem ber 12, 2 013. Rodriguez-Nova had a lready f iled

a prem a ture notice of appeal on May 25, 2012, which ripened upon the denial of his m otion f o r new t rial. See Hall v. State, 282 Ga. 294, 295 (1) (647 S E2d 5 85) (2007) (a prem ature notice of appeal is treated as ef f ectively f iled upon e ntry of the order deny ing t he m otion f or

n e w trial). The case w as docketed in t his Court f or the April 2014 term and su b mi t t e d f o r1

. 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 M e jia -Me sa a

n d Ro d rig u e z -No v a liv e d to g e th e r in a No rc ro ss a pa rtm e n t

a n d wo rk e d in th e sa m e d a n c e c lu b
, sh e a s a d a n c e r, an d h e a s a se c u rity g u ard

.

On Ju ne 2 2
, 2 0 0 8
, h e r sh i f t e n d e d a ro u n d 4 :4 5 a

. m ., a nd a lth o u g h Ro d rig ue z

No v a c a lle d a ta x i fo r h e r, sh e a n d two o th e r d a nc e rs w h o liv e d in th e sa m e

a p a rtm e nt c o m

ple x in ste a d a c c e p te d a

rid e fro m a c u sto m e r.

La t e r t h a t m o rn in g, R o d rig u e z -No v a to ld h is b ro th e r th a t he h a d k ille d

Me jia -Me sa

. Ro d rig ue z -No v a th e n c a lle d 9 1 1 a n d wa s m e t b y p o lic e o ffic e rs,

wh o fo u nd Me

jia -Me sa ’ s b o d y i n th e ir a pa rtm e n t. He r wrist a n d an k le s we re

b o u nd w ith d u c t ta

p e , a n d a d o u b le d -o v e r a n d k n o tte d p h o n e c o rd wa s wra p p e d

a ro u nd h e r n e c k. S h e h a d su sta in e d n u m e ro us in ju rie s an d h a d d ie d a s a

re su lt

o f stra n g u la tio n

.

Ro d rig u e z -No v a g a v e offic e rs a sta te m e n t in wh ic h h e d e sc rib e d wh a t h a d

h a p p e n e d in so m e d e ta il. At th e d a n c e c lu b
, h e h a d se e n M e jia -Me sa d a n c in g

su g g e stiv e ly with th e c usto m e r a n d k issin g h im

. Wh e n Ro d rig u e z -No v a a rriv e d

a t th e a p a rtm e n t a ro u n d 5 :3 0 a .m ., h e sa w so m e o n e le a v in g a n d th o u g h t it wa s

decision on the brief

s.

2th e c u sto m e r, a t wh ic h p o in t h e “ h a d n o c on sid e ra tio n fo r h e r.” Ro d rig ue z -No v a

e n te re d th e a

p a rtm e nt, g ra

b b e d a k n ife
, a n d wa s g oin g to sta b Me jia -Me sa

. Bu t

wh e n sh e b e g g e d h im

n o t to k ill h e r a n d a sk e d h im to th in k a b o u t h is c h ild re n

a n d h e rs, h e to ld h e r th a t h e wo u ld n o t k ill h e r if sh e sta y e d c a lm

. He b o u n d h e r

fe e t a n d h a

n d s, a n d sh e to ld h im th a t sh e lo v e d h im
, th a t th e y we re g o in g to g e t

m a rrie d
, th a t sh e a lre a d y h a d o rd e re d th e we d d in g rin g s, a nd th a t, if h e sto p p e d
,

sh e w o u ld no t te ll th e p o lic e

. He th e n to ld h e r th a t h e wa s g o in g to k ill h e r

a n y wa y a n d tu rn him se lf in
, if h e d id n o t k ill h im se lf. At so m e p oin t, h e sp ra y e d

h e r with p e p p e r sp ra y

. He c ho k e d h e r with b o th h a nd s, an d sh e b le d th ro u g h h e r

n o se . Wh e n h e sa w th a t sh e wa s still bre a th in g , he tie d a c o rd a ro u nd h e r n e c k

— tig h te n in g it a n d k n o ttin g it twic e so th a t it wo u ld n o t lo o se n — an d c h o k e d

h e r to d e a th with th e c o rd

.

Ro d rig u e z -No v a ’s d e fe n se a t tria l wa s th a t h e wa s gu ilty o n ly o f v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r. Bu t o n a

p p e a l, h e d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t th e e v i d e n c e is le g a lly

su ffic ie n t to su sta in h is c o nv ic t i o n s. We n e v e rth e le ss h a v e in de p e n d e n tly

re v ie we d th e re c o rd
, w ith a n e y e t o w a r d t h e le ga l su ffic ie n c y o f th e e vid 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 w a s le g a lly su ffic ie n t to

a u th oriz e a ra tio na l trie r of fa c t to f i n d be y o n d a re a so n a

b le d o u b t th a t

3Ro d rig u e z -No v a wa s g u ilty o f th e c rim e s o f wh ic h h e wa s c o n v ic te d. Ja c k so n

v . Virg in ia , 4 4 3 U. S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (III) (B) (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0) (1 9 7 9 ).

2

. W e n o w c o n sid e r th e c o n te n tio n th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n it

o v e rru le d Ro d rig u e z -No v a ’ s tim e ly ob je c tio n to th e a d m issio n o f a re c o rd in g

o f h is 9 1 1 c a ll. H e a

rg u e s th a t t h e S t a te fa ile d to p ro p e rly a u th e ntic a te th e

re c o rd in g , in s o f

a r a s th e S pa n ish in te rp re te r wh o a ssiste d th e 9 1 1 o p e ra to r

d u rin g th e c a ll d id n o t te stify
, a n d th e o p e ra to r h e rse lf d o e s n o t sp e a k S p a n ish

. 2

An d Ro d rig u e z -No v a p o in ts o u t th a t th e re wa s n o sh o win g th a t th e in te rp re te r

wa s “ un a v a ilab le ” a s a

n a u th e n tic a tin g w itn e ss u n d e r fo rm e r OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 8

. 3

Ev e n so , a n a

u d io re c o rd in g c a n b e a

u th e n tic a te d b y th e te stim o ny o f o n e p a rty

to t h e r ec o r d e d c o n v e rsa tio n

. S e e H u d so n v

. S ta te , 2 7 3 G a

. 1 24
, 1 27 (3 ) (5 3 8

S E2 d 7 5 1 ) (2 0 0 0 ); Alle n v

. S ta te , 3 0 2 G a

. A p p

. 1 9 0
, 1 9 1 (1 ) (6 9 0 S E2 d 4 9 2 )

(2 0 1 0 ). In th is c a se , th e 91 1 o p e ra to r re v ie we d th e re c ord in g, id e n tifie d it a s a

2 Although the parties have argued about the applicability of the “language conduit” rule, see Hernandez v. State, 291 Ga. App. 562, 566 (2) (a) (662 SE2d 325) (2008); Lopez

v. State, 281 Ga. A pp. 623, 625 (1) (636 SE2d 770) (2006), that rule deals with the issue of h e a r s a y , and Rodriguez-Nova d id not base his objection at trial — nor does h e base h i s appellate argum ent — on hearsay grounds.

3 W e note that the provisions of f orm er OCGA § 24-4-48 were carried f orward into the new Evidence Code and now can be f ound at OCGA § 24-9-923.

4fa ir a n d a c c u ra te re pro d u c tio n o f th e c a ll with n o a d d itio n s o r d e le tio n s,

re c o g n iz e d h e r own v o ic e , a n d id e n tif i e d t h e v oic e o f th e in te rp re te r. 4 S e e

Hu d so n , 2 7 3 Ga

. a t 1 2 7 (3 ); Alle n , 3 0 2 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 19 1 (1 ). He r in a b ility to

u n d e rsta n d th e S p a n ish p o rtio n s o f th e re c o rd e d c o nv e rsa tio n w e n t to th e we ig h t

to b e giv e n h e r te s tim o n y , no t th e su ffic ie n c y o f th e a u th e n tic a tio n o f th e

re c o rd in g . S e e Ga m

b re l v . S ta te , 2 6 0 Ga

. 1 9 7
, 2 00 (2 ) (3 91 S E2 d 4 0 6) (1 9 9 0 )

(witn e ss wa s u n a

b le to fill in b la n k s le ft by tra n sc rib e r); P a su e r v

. S ta te , 2 7 1 Ga

. Ap p

. 2 5 9
, 26 3 (2 ) (a ) (6 0 9 S E2 d 1 9 3 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (p a rt o f th e re c o rd in g wa s

in a u dib le ), o v e rru le d o n o th e r g ro un d s, Ve rg ara v

. S ta te , 2 8 3 Ga

. 1 7 5
, 1 7 7 (1 )

(6 5 7 S E2 d 8 63 ) (2 0 0 8 ). C o n se q u e n tly
, th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t a b use its disc re tio n

wh e n it a d m itte d th e re c o rd in g o f th e 9 1 1 c a ll. 5 S e e Co o k v

. S ta te , 2 7 3 G a

. 5 7 4
,

5 7 5 (2 ) (5 43 S E2 d 7 0 1 ) (2 0 0 1 ); Alle n , 3 02 Ga . Ap p . a t 1 91 (1 ).

3

. We tu rn n e xt to th e c l a i m t h a t Ro d rig u e z -No v a ’s tria l la wy e r wa s

in e ffe c tiv e b e c a

use h e fa ile d to su b p o e n a a fo re n sic bio lo gist fro m th e Ge o rg ia

4 W e note that another police com m unications em

ploy ee testif

ied a s to the operation of the 911 sy s t em

and the autom atic recording of Rodriguez-Nova’s call.

5 R odriguez-Nova also has brief ly argued, at trial and in t his appeal, that the S t a t e f a i l e d t o l ay a proper f

oundation f

or adm ission of the recording in that it presented no evidence of the chain o f custody

. But th e c hain o f custody requirem ent does n ot apply to audio and video recordings. Gadson v. State, 2 63 G a. 626, 627 (2) (437 SE2d 313) (1993).

5Bu re a

u o f In v e stig a tio n to te stify th a t sp e rm wa s fo u n d in Me jia -Me sa ’s b o d y

.

To p re v a il o n a c la im of in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e , Ro d rig u e z -No v a m u st p ro v e b o th

th a t th e p e rfo rm a n c e of h is la wy e r wa s d e fic ie n t a nd th a t h e wa s p re ju d ic e d b y

th is d e fic ie n t p e rfo rm a nc e . S tric k la n d v . Wa sh in gto n , 4 6 6 U. S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (III)

(1 0 4 S Ct 20 5 2
, 80 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ). To p ro v e t h a t th e p e rfo rm a nc e o f h is

la wy e r wa s d e fic ie nt, R o d rig ue z -No v a m ust sh o w th a t th e la wy e r p e rfo rm e d h is

d u tie s a t tria l in a n o b je c ti v e ly un re a so n a

b le wa y , c o n sid e rin g a ll th e

c irc u m sta n c e s, a n d in th e lig h t o f p re v a ilin g p ro fe ssio na l n o rm s. Id

. a t 68 7 -6 8 8

(III) (A). S e e a lso Kim m e lm a n v

. Mo rriso n , 4 7 7 U

. S

. 3 6 5
, 3 8 1 (II) (C) (1 0 6 S Ct

2 5 7 4, 9 1 LE2 d 3 0 5 ) (1 9 8 6). An d t o p r ov e th a t h e wa s p re ju d ic e d b y th e

p e rfo rm a n c e o f h is la wy e r, Ro d rig u e z -No v a m u st sh o w “ a re a so n a

b le

p ro b a b ility th a t, b u t fo r c o u n se l’s u n p ro fe ssio n a l e rro rs, th e re su l t o f th e

p ro c e e d in g wo u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. A re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility is a p ro b a

b ility

su ffic ie n t to u n d e rm in e c o n fid e nc e in th e ou tc o m e .” S tric k la n d, 4 66 U

. S. a t 6 9 4

(III) (B). S e e a lso Willia m s v

. Ta y lo r, 5 2 9 U. S . 3 6 2
, 3 9 1 (III) (1 20 S Ct 1 4 9 5
,

1 4 6 LE2 d 3 89 ) (2 00 0 ). Th is b u rd e n , a lth o u g h n ot im po ssib le to c a rry , is a h e a v y

o n e

. S e e Kim m e lm a

n , 47 7 U. S

. a t 3 82 (II) (C). We c o n c lu d e th a t Ro d rig ue z

No v a h a s fa ile d to c a rry h is b u rd e n

.
6Ro d rig u e z -No v a ’s la wy e r e x p e c te d th e S ta te to c a ll th e b io lo g ist, a n d th e

la wy e r m e n tio n e d th e e x p e ct e d e v id e n c e a bo u t th e sp e rm d u rin g o p e n in g

sta te m e n t a n d c lo sin g a rg u m e n t. A t t h e h e a rin g o n th e m otio n fo r ne w tria l,

h o we v e r, th e la wy e r in dic a te d th a t h e n e v e r p la nn e d to in tro d u c e th a t e v id e n c e

h im se lf b e c a

u se h e d id n o t w a n t th e ju ry to p e rc e iv e it a s a n u nn e c e ssa ry d ire c t

a tta c k o n Me

jia -Me sa

. Alth ou g h h is stra te g y wa s to sh o w th a t Ro d rig ue z -No v a

h a d a c te d in th e h e a t o f p a ssio n re su ltin g fro m t h e s e rio u s p ro v o c a tio n o f

o b se rv in g e v id e n c e th a t sh e h a d j u st be e n u n fa ith fu l, th e S ta te d id n o t e v e n

d isp u te th a t Ro drig u e z -No v a sa w e v id e n c e o f h e r un fa ith fu ln e ss o r th a t h e wa s

m o tiv a te d a s a re su lt to k ill h e r. Afte r re v ie win g th e re c o rd
, we c a nn o t sa y th a t

th e stra te g ic de c isio n n ot to c a ll th e b io lo g ist wa s so u n re a so na b le th a t n o

c o mp e t en t a tto rn e y wo u ld ha v e m a d e it u nd e r sim ila r c irc u m sta n c e s. S e e

Wa sh in g to n v

. S ta te , 2 9 4 G a

. 5 6 0
, 5 6 6 (3 ) (7 5 5 S E2 d 1 60 ) (2 0 1 4 ); Jo h n so n v

.

S ta te , 2 82 Ga

. 96
, 9 7 -9 8 (2 ) (6 4 6 S E2 d 2 1 6 ) ( 2 0 0 7 ); Aa ro n v

. S ta te , 2 7 5 Ga

. Ap p

. 2 69
, 2 7 1 (4 ) (a ) (6 2 0 S E2 d 4 9 9 ) (2 0 05 ). Th e e v id e n c e su pp orte d th e tria l

c o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e p er f o rm a n c e o f Ro d rig u e z -No v a ’s la wy e r wa s n o t

d e fic ie n t, a s he “ o u tlin e d so u n d ta c tic a l re a so n s fo r pro c e e din g a s h e d id .”

Mo re o v e r, be c a

u se th e e v id e n c e o f Me

jia -Me sa ’s u nfa i t h f

u ln e ss wa s n o t in

7d isp u te , R od rig u e z -No v a fa ile d to sh o w a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t th e re su lt

o f th e tria l w o u l d h a v e be e n d iffe re n t bu t fo r h is la wy e r’s fa ilu re to in tro d u c e

e v id e n c e a

b ou t th e pre se n c e o f sp e rm

. Se e Ho ffle r v

. S ta te , 2 92 Ga

. 5 37
, 5 4 3 (5 )

(7 3 9 S E 2 d 3 6 2 ) ( 2 0 1 3 ); Da n ie l v

. S ta te , 3 0 6 Ga

. Ap p

. 4 8
, 5 4 (4 ) (7 0 1 S E2 d

4 9 9 ) (2 01 0 ).

4

. La st, we c on sid e r Ro d rig u e z

- N o v a ’s c on te n tio ns w ith re sp e c t to th e
ju ry in stru c tio n s. He a sse rts th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n it fa ile d to g iv e th re e

o f h is re q u e ste d c h a rg e s a n d th a t a fo u rth c h a rg e , wh ic h th e c o urt d id g iv e , wa s

in e rro r. We will e x a m in e e a c h o f th e se a sse rtio n s in tu rn

. (a ) Citin g B o ga n v. Sta te , 1 5 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 1
, 2 (2 7 9 S E2 d 2 2 9 ) (1 9 8 1 ),

Ro d rig u e z -No v a c o m

p la in s o f th e tria l c o urt’s d e n ia l o f his re q u e st to c h a rg e th e
ju ry th a t , “ [ i] n m a k in g a de te rm in a tio n of wh e th e r a ny o th e r re a so n a b le

h y p oth e sis e x ists, th e d e fe n d a n t’s e x p la n a tio n m u st b e ta k e n in to c o n sid e ra tio n

in so fa r a s it is c on siste n t with th e c ir cu ms t a n t ia l e v id e nc e a d m itte d .” Bu t

Ro d rig u e z -No v a d id n o t te stify a t tria l. S e e Up to n v . S ta te , 1 2 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 5 4 7
,

5 5 0 (2 ) (1 9 7 SE2 d 47 8 ) (1 9 7 3 ) (o m issio n o f th is c h a rg e w a s n ot e rro r b e c a use

th e ju ry c o u ld d isb e lie v e th e d e fe n d a n t’s u n swo rn sta te m e n t in p a rt o r in wh o le ).

T h e c o u rt fu lly a n d c o rre c tly c o v e re d th e a pp lic a b le p rin c ip le s o f la w wh e n i t

8in stru c te d th e ju ry re g a rd in g th e p re su m ptio n o f in no c e n c e a n d th e S ta te ’s

b u rd e n o f p ro o f a n d w h e n it th e n c h a rg e d th a t, “ [t] o wa rra n t a c o n v ic tio n o n

c irc u m sta n tia l e v id e n c e , th e p ro v e n f a c ts m ust n o t o n ly b e c o n siste n t with th e

th e o ry o f gu ilt b u t a lso e xc lu d e e v e ry o th e r r e a s o n a b le th e o ry o th e r th a n th e

g u ilt of th e a c c u se d .” Se e fo rm e r OCGA § 24 -4 -6 6 ; Al f o rd v. S ta te , 2 2 4 Ga

. Ap p

. 4 5 1
, 4 5 6 (4 ) (4 8 0 S E2 d 8 9 3 ) (1 9 97 ); Up sh a w v

. S ta te , 1 7 2 G a

. Ap p

. 6 7 1
,

6 7 3 -6 7 4 (4 ) (3 2 4 S E2 d 5 2 9 ) (1 9 8 4 ). An d b e c a use R o d r i g u e z

- N o v a ’ s a d

m i s s i o n s

o f g u ilt fo llo win g th e sh oo tin g we re d ire c t e v id e n c e o f h is g u ilt, th e S ta te ’s c a se

wa s n o t b a se d so le ly o n c i r c um sta n tia l e vid e n c e

. S e e Bro w n v

. S ta te , 2 5 1 Ga

.

5 9 8
, 60 1 (4 ) (3 0 8 S E2 d 18 2 ) (1 9 8 3 ); S to re y v

. S ta te , 2 0 5 Ga

. Ap p

. 6 1 0
, 6 1 2 (4 )

(4 2 2 SE2 d 8 7 9) (1 9 9 2 ). Co n se q u e n t l y , a ssu m in g th a t th e a d d itio n a l

c irc u m sta n tia l e v id e n c e c h a rg e re q u e ste d b y Ro d rig ue z -No v a is e v e r re q u ire d
,

th e re c e rta in ly wa s n o e rro r in d e c lin in g to g iv e it in th is c a se

. (b ) Ro d rig u e z -No v a n e x t a sse rts th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rro n e o u sly d e n ie d h is

re q u e st to in stru c t th e ju ry th a t, “ [ w ]h ere th e S ta te m u st re ly u p o n th e

d e fe n d a n t’s a d m issio n a lo n e fo r a n e sse ntia l e le m e n t o f its c a se , a n d w h e re th e

6 W e note that the provisions of f orm er OCGA § 24-4-6 were carried f o rward into the new Evidence Code and now can be f ound at OCGA § 24-14-6.

9d e fe n d a n t’s in c u lp a to ry sta te m e n t is c o up le d with e x c u lp a to ry m a tte r, y o u

c a n n o t a c c e p t th e in c u lp a to ry sta te m e n t a n d re je c t th e e x c u lp a to ry m a tte r.” S e e

Le wis v

. S ta te , 2 9 2 Ga

. A p p

. 2 5 7
, 2 6 1 (1 ) (a ) (6 6 3 S E 2 d 7 2 1 ) (2 0 08 ). Bu t th is

ru le
, a s se t o u t in Te rry v

. S ta te , 2 4 3 Ga

. 1 1
, 1 2-1 3 (1 ) (2 5 2 S E 2 d 4 2 9 ) (1 9 7 9 ),

“ d o e s n o t a

p p l y w h e re th e [S ] ta te p re se nts o th e r d ire c t o r c irc u m sta n tia l

e v id e n c e th a t c o n tra dic ts th e e x c u lp a to ry p a rt of th e d e fe n d a n t’s sta te m e n t o r

te stim o n y .” Le w is, 29 2 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 2 6 2 ( 1 ) (a ). Se e a lso N e ttle s v. S ta te , 2 4 9

Ga

. 7 8 7
, 7 8 8 -7 8 9 (1 ) (2 9 4 S E2 d 49 2 ) (1 9 8 2 ). He re , a n y th in g in Ro d rig ue z

No v a ’s sta te m e nt th a t c o uld su p p o rt h is d e fe n se o f vo lu n ta ry m an sla u g h te r wa s

c o n tra d ic te d b y o th e r e v id e nc e — in c lu d in g th e m e dic a l e x a m in e r’s te stim o n y ,

p h y sic a l e v id e n c e , a n d oth e r p o rtio n s o f h is sta te m e n t — t h a t h is a tta c k o n

Me jia -Me s a w as o f sig n ific a n t le n g th an d in vo lv e d a n u m b e r o f d iffe re n t

d e lib e ra te a n d c ru e l a c tio n s (d u rin g wh ic h sh e ha d th e o p p o rtu n ity to e x p l a in

wh y h e sh o u ld n o t k ill h e r), th a t h e c h a n g e d his m in d a bo ut wh e th e r a n d h o w

to k ill h e r, a n d th a t sh e su sta in e d n u m e ro u s in ju rie s. S e e OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 (a ) (“ if

th e re sh o u ld ha v e b e e n a n in te r v a l b e twe e n th e p ro v oc a tio n a n d th e k illin g

su ffic ie n t fo r th e v oic e o f re a so n a n d hu m a nity to b e h e a rd
, o f wh ic h th e ju ry in

a ll c a se s sh a ll be th e ju d g e , th e k illin g sh a ll b e a ttrib u te d to d e lib e ra te re v e n g e

1 0a n d b e p u n ish e d a s m urd e r” ); F re z g h i v

. S ta te , 27 3 Ga

. 8 7 1
, 8 71 (1 ) (5 4 8 S E2 d

2 9 6 ) (2 0 0 1 ); G o fo rth v. S ta te , 2 7 1 Ga

. 7 0 0
, 7 01 (1 ) (5 23 S E2 d 8 6 8 ) (1 9 9 9);

Lo we v

. S ta te , 2 6 7 G a

. 41 0
, 4 1 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) (4 7 8 S E2 d 7 6 2 ) (1 9 9 6 ). Ac c o rd in gly
,

th e tria l c o u rt d id no t e rr wh e n it d e c lin e d to g iv e Ro d rig ue z -No v a ’s re q u e ste d

c h a rg e a s to wh e n a ju ry c a n n o t re je c t e x c u lp a to ry ma t te r in a d e fe n d a n t’s

sta te m e n t. S e e Ma n o r v . S ta te , 2 2 3 Ga

. 5 9 4, 5 9 6 (1 1) (1 5 7 S E2 d 4 3 1 ) (1 9 6 7 ).

(c ) Ro d rig u e z -No v a a lso c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c ou rt e rre d wh e n it fa ile d

to g iv e h is re q u e st to c h a rg e th e ju ry o n b a tte ry a s a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f

a g g ra v a te d b a tte ry a n d a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt. B u t th e tria l c o u rt m e rg e d th e

a g g ra v a te d b a tte ry a n d a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt c o u n ts in to th e c o n v ic tio n fo r m a lic e

m u rd e r, a n d
, th e re fo re , a n y issu e c o n c e rn in g th e ju ry c h a rg e g iv e n in c on n e c tio n

with th o se c o u n ts is m o o t. S e e P a rk e r v

. S ta te , 2 8 2 Ga

. 8 9 7
, 8 99 (4 ) (6 5 5 S E2 d

5 8 2 ) (2 0 0 8 ). In a n y e v e n t, th e tria l c o u rt de fin e d b a tte ry fo r th e ju ry , th e v e rd ic t

fo rm g a v e th e ju ry th e o p tio n o f c o n v i c tin g Ro d rig u e z -No v a o f b a tte ry a s a

le sse r in c lu de d o ffe n se o f a g g ra v a t e d b a tte ry , a n d Ro d rig ue z -No v a d o e s n o t

e x p la in ho w b a tte ry c o u ld h av e b e e n a le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f a g g ra v a te d

a ssa u lt in th is c a se

.

1 1(d ) Ro d rig u e z -No v a fin a lly c o m

p la in s a b ou t th e tria l c o u rt’s c ha rg e th a t

“ [p ] ro v o c a tio n b y w o rd s a lo n e will, in n o c a se , ju stify su c h e x c i t e m e n t o f

p a ssio n su ffic ie n t to fre e th e a c c u se d fro m th e c rim e o f m urd e r o r to re d u c e th e

o ffe n se to m a n sla u g h te r w h e n th e killin g is d o n e so le ly in re se ntm e n t o f su c h

p ro v o k in g wo rd s.” 7 H e a r g u e s th a t th is in stru c tio n wa s n o t su p p o rte d b y a n y

e v id e n c e a n d th a t it c om

p lic a te d th e issu e s fo r th e ju ry

. Bu t th e ru le se t fo rth in

th e c ha rg e is su b su m e d u nd e r th e sta tu to ry d e fin itio n o f v o lu n ta ry m a nsla u g h te r

in OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 (a ). S e e Ag u ila r v

. S ta te , 2 4 0 G a

. 8 3 0
, 8 3 3 (4 ) (2 4 2 S E2 d

6 2 0 ) (1 9 7 8). S e e a lso Bro o k s v

. S ta te , 24 9 G a

. 5 83
, 5 8 5 -5 8 6 (2 92 SE2 d 6 9 4 )

(1 9 8 2 ). In th a t re sp e c t, th e p a rtic u la r ju ry in stru c tio n o f wh ic h Ro d rig ue z -No v a

c o m p la in s wa s im

plic it in th e sta tu to ry v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g hte r in stru c tio n th a t

wa s g iv e n p u rsu a

n t to h is re q u e st. S e e Willia m s v

. S ta te , 2 6 3 G a

. 1 3 5
, 1 3 7 (6 )

(4 2 9 SE2 d 5 1 2 ) (1 9 9 3 ). A n d it wa s c o n s iste n t in a n y e v e nt with th e d e fe nse

th e o ry th a t Ro d rig u e z -No v a w a s p r o v ok e d by Me

jia -Me sa ’s c on d

u c t with th e

c u sto m e r fro m th e d a n c e c lu b. Th e c h a rg e c la rifie d f o r t h e ju ry th a t o n ly su c h

c o n d u c t — n o t h e r wo rd s a l o n e

— c o u ld m a k e th e c rim e v o lu n ta ry

7 This instruction is identical to a pattern charge on provocation by words alone. See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Crim inal Cases, § 2.10.42 (4 t h ed. 2007, updated through January

2014).

1 2m a n sla u g h te r, a n d it wa s a c o rre c t a n d o b je c tiv e sta te m e n t o f th e la w. S e e P a rk e r

v

. Sta te , 2 76 Ga

. 5 9 8
, 59 9 -6 0 0 (4 ) (5 8 1 S E2 d 7 ) (2 0 0 3 ); T o dd v

. S ta te , 2 7 4 Ga

.

9 8 , 1 01 -1 0 2 (4 ) (5 4 9 S E2 d 1 1 6 ) (2 0 0 1 ).

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

1 3