Christopher Slaughter was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Aikeem Hall. He appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit evidence of the victim’s prior violent acts and of provocation and that the trial court erred in finding Appellant competent to stand trial. We affirm the judgment below except for Appellant’s sentence for aggravated assault for shooting Hall in the leg, which we vacate because the conviction for that offense merged with his murder conviction.
Appellant and Jenkins ran into Hall, who shook Jenkins’s hand before turning to Appellant and asking him, “Why you been acting like a bi*ch lately?” Appellant then reached into his pocket, pulled out a gun, and shot Hall in the chest. Hall, who was unarmed, attempted to flee but fell to the ground. Hall yelled at Appellant to stop shooting, but Appellant kept firing, striking Hall once more in the leg as he emptied his gun. Appellant then fled, telling several eyewitnesses as he ran by, ££You didn’t see anything.”
Hall died from his chest wound. A bullet removed from Hall’s body and two other bullets found at the scene were matched to the gun that Appellant threw into a trash can as he fled, and Appellant’s fingerprint was found on the gun’s magazine.
Appellant was arrested the next day and spoke to the police after waiving his Miranda rights. In a recorded interview played at trial, Appellant at first denied shooting Hall, claiming that his only role was taking the gun from a shooter (whose name he made up) and disposing of it. Appellant eventually admitted, however, that he was the shooter and claimed that he acted in self-defense. Appellant blamed Hall for spreading rumors that he was gay and said that Hall had threatened him and stolen money from him. But Appellant also admitted that he had a temper and that he was mad when he continued shooting at Hall after the first shot. At trial, Appellant did not dispute that he shot Hall, arguing instead that the State failed to disprove that he shot Hall in self-defense and that his crime was mitigated by provocation.
The evidence presented at trial and summarized above, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to authorize
2. Appellant contends first that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of prior acts of violence by Hall against third parties. We disagree.
To make a prima facie showing of justification so as to allow evidence of violent acts by the victim against third parties, “the defendant must show that the victim was the aggressor, the victim assaulted the defendant, and the defendant was honestly trying to defend himself.”
Id. (citations omitted). We review the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of a victim’s acts of violence against third parties only for abuse of discretion. See Smith v. State,
Appellant sought to present evidence of a violent encounter between Hall and third parties less than a year before he shot Hall. The trial court excluded this evidence on the grounds that Appellant failed to show that Hall assaulted him and that Appellant was honestly trying to defend himself. The record supports these holdings. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of justification and excluding this evidence.
3. Appellant next claims that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding testimony by his investigator that he asserts was relevant to the issue of provocation. Even assuming that the testimony at issue was relevant in showing provocation, but see Brooks v. State,
(a) When Appellant’s investigator testified that Maukeda Bird-ette had told him that Hall had called Appellant a “f*gg*t,” the State objected on the ground that Birdette had not been asked during her testimony earlier in the trial whether she made such a statement to the investigator. Our review of Birdette’s testimony confirms that point. Accordingly, the trial court correctly sustained the objection. See Hall v. Lewis,
In any event, the jury heard the investigator’s testimony, and there was no motion to strike it. Moreover, Birdette had admitted on cross-examination that she told the investigator that Hall was spreading a rumor that Appellant was gay. Thus, any error in sustaining the State’s objection would be harmless.
(b) After the trial court sustained the State’s objection to the defense investigator’s testimony that Birdette had told him that Hall called Appellant a “f*gg*t,” Appellant requested the opportunity to proffer further testimony by the investigator. After the jury was excused, Appellant proffered testimony by the investigator that Jenkins had told the investigator that Jenkins had told Appellant that Hall had called him “a f*gg*t, a b*tch, and a punk.”
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in excluding this testimony. As with Birdette, however, a review of Jenkins’s trial testimony confirms that he had not been asked whether he made such a statement to the investigator. Accordingly, the proffered testimony
4. Appellant finally contends that the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial after the bench trial on competency. See OCGA § 17-7-130 (b) (2).
The constitutional test for competency [is] whether the defendant is capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings, . . . comprehends his own condition in reference to such proceedings [,] and... is capable of rendering his counsel assistance in providing a proper defense.
Sims v. State,
Appellant’s claim rests primarily on testimony by the defense’s forensic psychology expert that because of Appellant’s low I.Q. and his religious delusions regarding the trial and the legal process, he lacked a rational understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings and his role in them and was incapable of assisting his attorneys in mounting a defense. Appellant also cites testimony from two family members about the family history of mental illness, Appellant’s behavioral problems as a child, and his delusional thinking while awaiting trial, as well as testimony by his lead counsel regarding the difficulties his attorneys had encountered in working with him.
However, there was also substantial testimony from the State’s forensic psychology expert that Appellant understood in detail the nature and object of the proceedings and his role in them and that Appellant was able, if not always inclined, to assist his attorneys. In addition, three jailers testified that Appellant’s daily interactions with others appeared to be normal. And even the defense’s expert conceded that Appellant knew the names and functions of those involved in the trial process, could recall and relate facts pertaining to his actions and whereabouts at the time of the shooting, and knew what was expected of him at trial, what the charges against him were, and the potential sentence he faced if convicted.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence presented at the competency trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to conclude that Appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was incompetent to stand trial. See Sims,
Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Notes
The victim was killed on October 5, 2009. On November 2, 2009, Appellant was indicted in Hall County for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault for shooting Hall in the chest, aggravated assault for shooting Hall in the leg, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. After a bench trial on November 29,2011, the trial court found that Appellant was competent to stand trial. On December 5-8,2011, he was tried before ajury, which convicted him of all charges. On December 9, 2011, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison for malice murder; a concurrent 20-year probationary term for aggravated assault for shooting Hall in the leg; five years on probation for the first firearm conviction,
By comparison, where a non-fatal injury preceded a fatal injury and there was a deliberate interval between the injuries, we have regularly held that separate convictions for the initial assault and the fatal assault did not merge. See Coleman,
Appellant was tried in 2011, so Georgia’s new Evidence Code does not apply to this case. See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101 (“This Act shall become effective on January 1,2013, and shall apply to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after such date.”). We note that Professor Milich asserts that “[p]re-2013 Georgia law allowed the defendant to prove specific prior violent acts by the victim to show the victim’s propensity to violence. Chandler v. State,
Appellant’s reliance on Johnson v. State,
At the time of Appellant’s trial, OCGA § 24-9-83 provided as follows regarding the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a testifying witness:
A witness may he impeached by contradictory statements previously made by him as to matters relevant to his testimony and to the case. Before contradictory statements may he proved against him, . . . the time, place, person, and circumstances attending the former statements shall be called to his mind with as much certainty as possible. . . .
This provision has been replaced with respect to extrinsic evidence by OCGA § 24-6-613 (b) of the new Evidence Code, which states:
[E]xtrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness shall not be admissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent statement and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on the prior inconsistent statement or the interests of justice otherwise require.
We note that Professor Milich also suggests that Georgia law has been materially changed in this regard, see Paul S. Milich, Courtroom Handbook on Georgia Evidence 392 (2012 ed.), but we again do not need to address any such change in deciding this case.