A jury fоund Terrence Reynolds guilty but mentally ill on charges of malice murder, aggravated assault and pоssession of a knife during the commission of a felony. Pursuant to the trial court’s grant of an out-of-time appeal, Reynolds filed an unsuccessful motion for new trial. He now appeals to this Court frоm the judgments of conviction and sentences entered on the jury’s verdicts. 1
1. Reynolds broke into the home of Judson Atwood, who awakened and arose to investigate. A confrontation and struggle еnsued wherein Reynolds fatally stabbed Mr. Atwood. Although Reynolds originally was determined to be incompetent to stand trial, his competency subsequently was restored. There being no dispute that Reynolds committed the homicide, he raised the affirmative defense of legal insanity. According to Reynolds’ experts, he was legally insane when he committed the acts for which he was being tried. Howevеr, the State’s experts testified that Reynolds had mental or emotional problems which did not cоnstitute legal insanity. The jury was authorized to believe the State’s experts and, therefore, to find
*175
that Reynolds had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was legally insane. We conclude that the evidence, when construed most strongly against Reynolds, is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find proof beyond a reasonablе doubt that he was guilty of the crimes charged, but that he was mentally ill.
Jackson v. Virginia,
It does appear, however, that the aggravated assault merged, as a matter of fact, into the malice murder.
Fitzpatrick v. State,
2. After the trial commenced, one of the jurors discovered that he knew sevеral of Reynold’s relatives, and he reported this to the trial court. The trial court conducted a hearing and determined that the juror should be replaced by one of the alternates. Rеynolds urges that, by so doing, the trial court violated the mandate of OCGA § 15-12-167, which provides that a challеnge for cause generally must be raised before the jury is sworn and the evidentiary stage of the trial has begun.
The defendant in a criminal proceeding has no vested interest in the service of аny particular juror, but is entitled only to a legal and impartial jury.
Wells v. State,
3. Reynolds contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a charge on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. Such a charge would have to be supported by evidence that Reynolds acted solely from passion resulting from serious provocation by Mr. Atwood. There is no such evidence, since it is undisputed that Mr. Atwood did not provoke the homicide, but simply was defending himself in his own home against Reynolds’ unlawful invasion. “In no way does this evidence suggest that [Reynolds] acted out of ‘sudden, violent, and irresistible passion,’ as a reason
*176
able person would have done in similar circumstances.”
Worthem v. State,
Judgments affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Notes
The crimes occurrеd on July 22-23, 1993, and the grand jury indicted Reynolds on September 29, 1993. On February 3, 1995, he filed notice of intent to raise the issue of his sanity. On March 27, 1995, a jury found him incompetent to stand trial, but, on September 11, 1995, his competenсy was found to be restored. On April 17, 1996, the jury returned its verdicts finding Reynolds guilty of the crimes charged but mentally ill and, on that same day, the trial court entered its judgments of conviction and sentences on the verdiсts. Reynolds filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal on July 17,1997. On November 18,1997, the trial сourt granted that motion and ordered the appointment of appellate counsel to represent Reynolds. On December 16, 1998, the trial court denied Reynold’s motion for new trial and, оn December 29, 1997, he filed his notice of appeal. The case was docketed in this Court on February 9, 1999, and was submitted for decision on April 5,1999.