Thе defendant was convicted of the murder of his seventeen-year-old stepson and sentenced to life imprisonment. In a statement to the jury prior to the trial of the case, defense сounsel stipulated that the defendant shot the victim with a .22 revolver, but maintained the evidence would show the shooting was accidental.
The undisputed evidence at trial established that on the night оf the victim’s death the defendant and his wife, the victim’s mother, were involved in a disagreement over an undetermined matter. When Mrs. Scott attempted to leave their bedroom, the defendant pushеd her down and struck her. The victim, who had been asleep on the couch in the adjoining living room, ran to the bedroom to see if his mother was hurt. At this point the defendant slammed the bedroom door, lеaving the victim in the living room. Through the bedroom door the victim called to his mother that she could come out of the bedroom if she wished.
The victim’s sister and mother testified that they heard the defendant respond, “she is not coming anywhere. If you want her, come in here and get her.” According to the victim’s mother the defendant then took a gun which had been in his possession for about three yeаrs from his dresser and shot the victim in the head as the victim opened the door to enter the bedroom. In his own behalf the defendant testified he told the victim to go away, that he “wasn’t going to hurt [the victim’s] mother,” and that he fired the gun in the *196 air to frighten the victim.
Other evidence revealed that numerous members of the defendant’s family, including his wife, her daughter and sisters, believed that the defendant was practicing witchcraft. 1 Beсause of this opinion these family members ostracized him, blaming family illnesses and other troubles that befell them on alleged “spells” the defendant cast over them. Apparently this belief originatеd when the defendant’s sister-in-law proclaimed, some months prior to the victim’s death, that God had disclosed to her the defendant and a number of other members of her church were practicing witchcraft. Thereafter the defendant’s wife began sprinkling “annointed water” over their house, yard and car to counteract the effect of the defendant’s “spells.” According to the defendant, his wife remained in their home, but virtually refused to communicate with him.
The defendant testified that he had never practiced witchcraft and did not understand why his sister-in-law had made this accusation. He further testified that the impact of these charges had been tremendous, dividing his family and causing him severe depression. He stated he was under “great pressure” on the night of the victim’s death becаuse of his wife’s belief that he was a “warlock,” and had only fired the gun to frighten the victim so that he and his wife might be left alone to resolve their difficulties.
(1) Enumerations of error one, two and five complain that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the law of felony murder, Code Ann. § 26-1101 (b). This section provides: “[a] person also commits the crime of murder when in the commission of a felony he causеs the death of another human being, irrespective of malice.” Following this charge the trial court instructed the jury that “a person commits a felony when, after having been convicted of a felony, he possesses any firearm. I further charge you that the crime of burglary is a felony. If you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the homicide at the time he was engaged in the commission of a felony, to wit possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, you would be authorized to find him guilty of murder.”
The evidence 2 showed that in 1962 the defendant had been conviсted of the crime of burglary.
(a) Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in charging
*197
the jury that they were authorized to find him guilty of felony murder when he was only indicted for malice murder, Code Ann. § 26-1101 (a).
3
Where thеre is evidence to support a charge of felony murder, it is not error for the trial court to charge this crime even though the defendant is only indicted for malice murder.
Phelps v. State,
(b) In charging the law of felony murder, the trial court instructed the jury that the possession of any firearm by a convicted felon is a felony. Code Ann. § 26-2914. Defendant maintains that his possession of a firеarm merges with the act of shooting; therefore, the jury was not authorized to find him guilty of felony murder. However, this court rejected the “merger doctrine” with regard to felony murders in
Baker v. State,
(c) Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury “how to decide if thе defendant was guilty of possession of a gun.” We need not reach the issue of whether this omission was harmful error because we conclude defendant waived his right to object on appeal to that portion of the charge.
Following its charge the trial court inquired whether defendant had any objections to the charge as given. Defendant enumerated several objections, but none applicable to the definition of “possession of a firearm.” After deliberating for some time the jury asked to be reinstructed on the law of felony murder. Defendant neither requеsted that a charge on possession be given at this time nor objected to its omission when the trial court again inquired whether he had any objections.
“ ‘In order to avoid waiver, if the trial court inquires if there are objections to the charge, counsel must state his objections or follow the procedure set forth in
Gaither v. State,
(d) Defendant points out that he was not represented by counsel at his 1962 conviction for burglary. He maintains an uncounseled felony conviction, being void, should not be permitted to serve as the underlying felony in a conviction of felony murder.
In Lewis v. United States,
While noting thаt under the Sixth Amendment an uncounseled felony conviction cannot be used for certain purposes,
4
the Court reasoned that the “federal gun law... focus(es) not on reliability (of the prior felony conviction), but on the mere fact of conviction ... in order to keep firearms away from potentially dangerous persons ... (The) judgment that a convicted felon, even one whоse conviction was allegedly uncounseled, is among the class of persons who should be disabled from dealing in or possessing firearms because of potential dangerousness is rational” under both the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
We note that the Georgia statute, Code Ann. § 26-2914, like its federal counterpart, plainly purports to prevent all convicted felons from possessing a firearm until they are pardoned from their felony convictions; Code Ann. § 26-2914 (b), or otherwise relieved of this disability, Code Ann. § 26-2914 (d). Neither stаtute makes an exception for an invalid outstanding felony conviction. We find no merit in defendant’s argument.
(2) In his remaining two enumerations of error defendant argues that the trial court should not have аdmitted either the murder weapon or a photograph of the deceased in evidence since
*199
their relevancy was destroyed by his stipulation as to the cause of death. “Relеvant evidence cannot be kept from the jury by an admission of the fact or waiver of the requirement of proof.”
Franklin v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
There is no evidence to indicate that the viсtim shared this belief.
Defendant testified to his 1962 conviction for burglary on direct examination and offered as evidence a certified copy of his sentence.
The trial court instructed the jury as to both malice murder and felony murder. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the crime of murder, making it impossible to determine which crime he was convicted of.
For example, an uncounseled felony conviction cannot be used for the enhancement of punishment under a state recidivist statute. Burgett v. Texas,