James Milton Happoldt was found guilty of the malice murder and felony murder of his ex-wife Janice Buice, of aggravated аssault on his son Jackson Happoldt, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. We affirm Happoldt’s convictions. *
*127 The evidence, considered in a light most favorable to the verdict, showed that on March 3, 1994, Haрpoldt and Buice had an argument on the telephone about child support. That afternoon, Happoldt wеnt to his ex-wife’s residence and waited for her to arrive. As Buice and Jackson approached the garagе, Happoldt fired three shots into Buice’s side of the automobile, killing her and injuring his son. Jackson testified that his father told him, aftеr the shooting, “[t]his is what happens when people screw me,” and that as he was entering the house he heard an аdditional gunshot in the garage. The medical examiner, who performed the autopsy, testified that Buice had been shot three times from a distance and once in the head from within two inches. The evidence demonstrated that the last gunshоt Jackson heard, while entering the house, caused the wound to Buice’s head. There was also testimony from Hapрoldt’s girl friend, Clemons, that three weeks before the crimes Happoldt told her that he would kill his ex-wife for what she had done to him and his family.
1. Happoldt contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions of malice murder and аggravated assault. We disagree.
(a) The jury, assessing the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, chose nоt to believe Happoldt’s testimony that shooting Buice was a split second decision and the result of an uncontrоllable feeling.
Roker v. State,
(b) The State was not required to prove that Happoldt intеnded to shoot his son, Jackson, in order to establish the crime of aggravated assault in this case. Under the doctrine оf transferred intent, “[wjhen an unintended victim is struck down as a result of an unlawful act actually directed against someone else, the law prevents the actor from taking advantage of his own wrong and transfers the original intent from the one agаinst whom it was directed to the one who actually suffered from it.”
Fussell v. State,
2. Hapрoldt asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for change of venue. We disagree.
The trial court hаs the discretion to grant a change of venue and its determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.
Chancey v. State,
Considering the record, we cannot say that the setting of the trial was inherently prejudicial as a result of the pretrial publicity or that there was actual prejudice in the jury selection process rendering a fair trial impossible. Happoldt made no showing that the publicity contained information that was factually incorrect or that the publiсity was inflammatory or reflective of an atmosphere of hostility.
2
Compare
Tyree v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on IMarch 3, 1994. Happoldt was indicted on May 16, 1994, for the malice murder and felony murder of Janice Buice, of aggravated assault on his son Jackson Happoldt, and possessiоn of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was tried on August 18, 1994, and was found guilty of all charges. On August 18, 1994, Happoldt was sentenced to life imprisonment for malice murder, twenty years imprisonment to be served consecutively for aggravated assault, and five years to be served consecutively to the twenty years for possession of a firearm during the commissiоn of a felony. The felony murder con *127 viction stood vacated by operation of law, OCGA § 16-1-7. His motion for a new trial, filed on September 12, 1994, and amended on November 14, 1995, was denied on December 15, 1995. A motion for an out-of-time appеal was granted on February 28, 1996. The notice of appeal was filed on February 28, 1996, and the appeal was doсketed with this Court on March 20, 1996. The case was submitted for decision without oral argument on May 22, 1996.
The publicity in question amounted to seven articles run in three newspapers from March 4, 1994 to July 6, 1994, as well as one television broadcast about the upcoming trial which was shown on August 12, 1994. The statements made by the police in the articles detailed the nature of the events leading to the shooting and included a statement that “[t]here was no way she could get away. He [Happoldt] waited there on her. And then when she showed up, he ambushed her ... he opened fire.” Another statement was made by the Sheriff, who said that “every indication we got is that he [Happoldt] planned to come there and kill her.” One article stated that Happoldt had been questioned by police in regard to two unsolved five-year-old murders. Another article stated that Happoldt had moved for a change of venue.