Boatright v. State, 289 Ga. 597

Background

Boatright was convicted of malice murder, burglary, and related crimes for the shotgun killing of Scott Hudgins in Dallas, Georgia, April 2007.
Co-indictee Michelle Ray (appellant’s former partner) and Heather Pate participated in the home invasion; the shooting occurred within 30–45 seconds after entry.
The shooter, Boatright, wielded a loaded shotgun with a laser sight and fired at Hudgins after Hudgins confronted the intruders.
Forensic evidence showed Hudgins was standing in or near the bedroom doorway and about 18 inches from the gun at the time of the shot.
The State relied on eyewitness testimony from Whitlow and others, with Boatright and Timothy Ray testifying inconsistently about the events; defense argued accident or mutual fight as defenses.
The State introduced co-indictee Timothy Ray’s prior statements; defense did not object contemporaneously, and the court admitted the statements as Ray’s prior inconsistent statements before trial recessed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ray's prior statements were properly admitted	Boatright argues improper foundation and prejudice from Ray's statements.	Ray's statements were admissible as prior inconsistent statements with proper foundation.	Harmless error; defense had opportunity to cross-examine and no prejudice shown.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Ray's statements	Ineffective assistance because statements contained hearsay and other improper matters.	Counsel had no duty to object given record and untranscribed material not fully presented on appeal.	No reversible ineffectiveness; record insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice.
Whether the trial court erred by denying involuntary manslaughter charges	Involuntary manslaughter should have been charged based on accident theory.	Evidence showed purpose to instill fear and intent to harm; no basis for involuntary manslaughter.	No error; charge refused appropriately given the evidence.
Whether the transferred-intent instruction was improperly given	Transferred-intent theory applied to shift from Craig Aiken to the victim.	No evidence of intended target other than the victim; instruction misapplied.	Reversible error to give unadjusted transferred-intent instruction; however, no prejudice established; not reversible error.
Whether the court erred by not instructing mutual combat and counsel was ineffective for not requesting it	Mutual combat instruction warranted if both parties engaged in a sudden quarrel.	No mutual combat evidence; instruction unwarranted and trial counsel not deficient.	No error; absence of mutual combat instruction was proper given the evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (sufficiency standard for evidence to sustain verdict)
Glover v. State, 285 Ga. 461 (2009) (credible assessment of eyewitness testimony)
Rozier v. State, 287 Ga. 137 (2010) (contemporaneous objection requirement for evidentiary issues)
Brinson v. State, 268 Ga. 227 (1997) (cross-examination and admissibility of prior statements)
Crawford v. State, 288 Ga. 425 (2011) (doubling down on evidence admissibility and constitutional objections)
Francis v. State, 266 Ga. 69 (1995) (evaluation of error contribution to verdict)
Smith v. State, 267 Ga. 372 (1996) (transferred intent limitations)
Foster v. State, 264 Ga. 369 (1994) (limits on transferred-intent doctrine)
Rhodes v. State, 257 Ga. 368 (1987) (scope of transferred intent and attempted defense)
Happoldt v. State, 267 Ga. 126 (1996) (transferred-intent doctrine application)
Nelms v. State, 285 Ga. 718 (2009) (mutual combat and defense-of-others considerations)
Jones v. State, 287 Ga. 770 (2010) (counsel's failure to object to improper charges)
Herbert v. State, 298 Ga.App. 826 (2009) (charge on lesser-included offenses requires support by evidence)
Robinson v. State, 272 Ga. 752 (2000) (admission of evidence and standards for review)