Stephen Pearson was found guilty of malice murder and an alternative count of felony murder, as well as separate charges of aggravatеd assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Because the verdict as to felony murder was vacated by operation of law
(Malcolm v. State,
1. According to the State’s evidence, a verbal altercation began in a restaurant at which Richard Aaron and his brother were рatrons. Pearson started the dispute, claiming to take offense at the way in
*491
which Aaron looked at him. The brothers left, but then returned. Although Aaron attеmpted to shake hands, Pearson did not reciprocate. Pearson then followed the two brothers into the parking lot. There, Pearson began yelling, and he fired several shots. Aaron was fatally wounded, and Pearson fled. The victim was not armed, but he was carrying a black bag. In his custodial statements, Pearson claimed that he acted in self-defense, believing that Aaron was reaching into the bag to retrieve a weapon. The evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt thаt Pearson was guilty of malice murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
Jackson v. Virginia,
With regard to the guilty verdict for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, Pearson contends that the evidence is insufficient, because the State tendered only а non-certified copy of an indictment charging him with a felony violation of the Controlled Substances Act. However, a review of the face оf the document shows the entry by Pearson of a guilty plea to the offense, to which plea he and his attorney both affixed their signatures. Although the indictment including the acknowledged guilty plea, as admitted, does not bear any certification, the record indicates that it was originally tendered as рart of an exhibit identified as a certified copy of Pearson’s felony conviction. Defense counsel acknowledged that the exhibit was a certified copy of her client’s conviction, but objected because it contained the sentencing sheet as well as the indictment. Defense counsel stated that the “sentencing sheet is [in] appropriate to go back with the jury. Only the conviction itself [should go out with the jury].” In response tо this objection, the trial court admitted the indictment without the sentencing sheet. Apparently, the certification for the exhibit was contained on the sentencing sheet omitted pursuant to Pearson’s objection. Under these circumstances, he is precluded from asserting that the documentary proof of his prior conviction was uncertified. A party cannot solicit an evidentiary ruling and then complain of it on appeal.
Ballard v. State,
2. Relying on
Miranda v. Arizona,
3. Pearson enumerates as error the failure to charge on mutual combat. However, the evidence is undisputed that the homicide occurred only because Pearson chose to pursue the Aaron brothers and to escalate the altercation by yelling and then shooting at them. Under the evidence, if he was not guilty of murder, it was solely because the shooting was justified, and not because the homicide was an act of voluntary manslaughter. Compare
Sinkfield v. State,
Moreover, even assuming that the evidenсe had authorized a finding that the fight was mutual, as opposed to unilateral, the failure to charge on mutual combat would not constitute reversiblе error, because the defense did not make a request for such an instruction.
Dolcomb v. State,
4. The black bag and its contents were admitted into evidence without оbjection. Before the exhibits were delivered to the jury room, however, defense counsel urged that the contents, which included the deceased’s notebooks, be withheld from the jurors. According to her, “[w]hether it goes to the jury, I’m saying that it’s improper. That it’s highly prejudicial. I see things highly prejudicial and irrelevant and [that] would harm my client . . . .” The trial court overruled this obj ection, and the contents of the bag were sent to the jury room along with the other еvidence.
It is important to note that Pearson did not object to admission of the bag’s contents, only to allowing those contents to go out with the jury. There is some question whether this objection was timely. “[T]he better practice would be to interpose a timely objection to the initial admission оf the written evidence on the specific ground that it should not go out with the jury. [Cit.]”
Brewton v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes took place on December 1,1996. The grand jury indicted Pearson on October 10,1997. The jury returned the guilty verdicts оn January 8, 1998. The trial court entered the judgments of conviction and imposed the sentences on February 2,1998. Pearson filed a motion for new trial on Mаrch 3, 1998, which the trial court denied on June 27, 2001. The trial court granted a motion for an out-of-time appeal on November 14, 2003. Pearson filed a notice of appeal on November 26, 2003, and the case was docketed in this Court on March 31,2004. The appeal was submitted for decision on May 24, 2004.