Bonman v. StateBonman v. State
Appellant Curtis Bonman was found guilty of malice murder and other related crimes arising out of the shooting death of Charlie Davis, Jr.1 His motion for new trial was denied, and on appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to give his requested charge on involuntary manslaughter. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
1. The evidence presented at trial authorized the jury to conclude that appellant and two co-defendants, Thaddeus Williams and Killeon Cooper, planned to rob Davis, a drug dealer, in retaliation for a previous drug purchase in which Cooper felt he had been “shorted.” On the night of the crimes, the three men, each of whom was armed with a gun,2 drove to the housing project where Davis lived, approached Davis as he was standing outside, and started shooting. Appellant and Cooper chased Davis as he tried to run away, and after Davis stumbled, Cooper continued shooting. When Cooper ran out of ammunition or his gun jammed, appellant, who was standing next to him, gave Cooper his gun and more shots were fired at Davis. One of the bullets from appellant‘s gun hit Davis in a major blood vessel in his hip, causing his death.
Although he initially denied any involvement in the crimes, appellant eventually told investigators that he drove with Williams
Investigators recovered multiple cartridge casings and projectile fragments from the crime scene. A firearms expert was able to match the 9 millimeter cartridge casings recovered from the scene to the Hi-Point 9 millimeter pistol appellant admitted using and giving to Cooper. The expert concluded that one of the projectiles was fired from a Hi-Point 9 millimeter pistol but he could not say conclusively that it was fired from appellant‘s gun.
Construed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, we find the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. In his sole enumeration of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred by refusing his request to charge the jury on unlawful act involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder. See
Even assuming it was error for the trial court to refuse to charge the jury on involuntary manslaughter, we conclude the error was harmless. The version of events offered by appellant in support of the requested charge was inconsistent with the testimony of multiple witnesses who testified that Davis was shot at close range by two men
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.