Following a jury trial, Mack Henry Lott was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, Lott claims that (i) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and (ii) the trial court erred in admitting the statement of an unavailable witness and in excluding a psychologist’s expert testimony. Lott also claims that he received ineffectivе assistance of counsel. We find no reversible error and affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that on April 4,1999, the body of Bryant Johnson was found in a ditch near Lott’s home. The previous day, Johnson had worked for Lott, helping a four-man crew on various jobs. They met Cheryl Jackson at one of the job sites. After work, Lott bought a gallon of gin and some beer and drove back to his house with Jackson, Johnson, and two other members of the crew. After they arrived, Johnson demanded that Lott give him five dollars. Lott gave Johnson the money and told him to leave and never cоme back.
Lott, who was worried that Johnson might cause trouble, got out his gun and set it in the bathroom stall. Johnson returned about 30 minutes later, banged on the door, and asked for a light. Lott told Johnson to leavе, but Johnson refused. Eventually, Lott told Johnson to go away or he would shoot him. Lott then got his gun, and when Johnson opened the door and began to enter, Lott shot him in the stomach. Johnson fell to the ground, and Lott shot him two more times.
1. Lott claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for voluntary manslaughter. We disagree.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidencе in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys
*374
the presumption of innocence.
Short v. State,
“A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of anothеr human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such рassion in a reasonable person.” OCGA § 16-5-2 (a). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Lott guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of voluntary manslaughter.
Jackson v. Virginia,
supra. The jury was free to reject Lott’s claim that he was merely protecting himself from Johnson and that his use of deadly force was authorized under the circumstances. Seе
Smith v. State,
2. Lott argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a statement made to police by Jackson. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the admission of the statement did not amount to reversible error.
After Jackson failed to appear to testify, the trial court admitted Jackson’s statement under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule. See
Grimes v. State,
The State located Jackson the day after her statement was read to the jury. She was рlaced into custody, brought to court, and made available for cross-examination. “[W]hen the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause plаces no constraints at all on the use of [her] prior testimonial statements.”
Crawford,
3. Lott claims that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of clinical psychologist Dr. Robert Shaffer. We disagree.
“The admissibility of expert testimony is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion. We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling on such evidence absent an abuse of that discretion.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Home Depot U.S.A. v. Tvrdeich,
The State moved in limine to prevent Lott from calling Dr. Shaffer. According to the proffer of Dr. Shaffer’s testimony, Lott suffered from a condition that impeded his ability to change a course of action once an action had been instituted. Dr. Shaffer also believed, however, that Lott was competent to stand trial, that Lott knew the difference between right and wrong, and that Lott did not suffer from a delusional compulsiоn. After hearing a proffer of Dr. Shaffer’s testimony, the trial court excluded the testimony as irrelevant.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony. Lott contended that he shot Johnson in self-dеfense. The defense of justification is based on a “reasonable man” standard of behavior, and Lott did not raise an insanity or mental incompetency defense that would have made his mentаl condition relevant to his guilt or innocence.
Weems v. State,
4. Lott claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury charge on specific forcible felonies that Johnson may have been engaged in that would have authorized Lott to use deadly force against him. We disagree.
*376
“To prove ineffective assistance, [Lott] was required to show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced his defense. The trial court’s factual determinations with respeсt to counsel’s effectiveness will be upheld on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” (Citations omitted.)
Bennett v. State,
Lott shows that under OCGA § 16-3-21 (a) “a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm... to prevеnt the commission of a forcible felony.” Lott contends that evidence would support the conclusion that he was trying to prevent Johnson from committing a forcible felony, particularly burglary, аrmed robbery, and aggravated assault, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a charge on the definitions of these crimes as forcible felonies.
[I]f a defendant bases his ineffectiveness claim on trial counsel’s failure to request a charge on a certain defense, it is irrelevant whether the trial court would have been required to give such a charge absent a request. Rather, the appropriate inquiry is whether trial counsel provided deficient representation in failing to request the charge, and if so, whether the defendant can meet the рrejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington. In making the latter determination, the relevant inquiry is whether the charge, if it had been requested, was warranted by the evidence, and if it had been given, whether there is a reasonable probability that it would have changed the outcome of the trial.
(Footnote omitted.)
Bush v. State,
Even assuming that Lott’s trial counsel was deficient, and the charges, if requested, were warranted by the evidence, Lott cannоt show prejudice. The trial court charged the jury on the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, burden of proof, and the defense of justification, including that a forcible felоny is “any felony which invokes the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.” As the charges given fairly informed the jury as to when a homicide is justified, we cannot conclude that there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result if an instruction on specific forcible felonies had also been given. See
Springs v. Seese,
Judgment affirmed.