Edgаr Taylor appeals his convictions of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. We find thе evidence sufficient to sustain Taylor’s convictions. He argues that the verdicts are inconsistent with not guilty verdicts of malice and felony murder, but his case does not fall into the rare exception to the abolition of the inconsistent verdict rule. He argues that his convictiоns are barred by the principles of collateral estoppel, but the not guilty verdicts came in the same trial as the guilty verdicts, not a previous trial, so collateral estoppel does not apply. As the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on simple assault in connection with its instruction on aggravated assault, there is no merit to Taylor’s argument that its failure to do so was plain error. We therеfore affirm.
1. Sufficiency of the evidence.
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his criminal conviction, “the relevant questiоn is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia,
Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that Taylor sold alcoholic drinks from his home. The viсtim, Elijah Huff, and his
Rozier testified that there had been no threats or arguments before she left. But two months before, Taylor had shown her and Huff a gun. Taylor had said he purchased the gun especially for Huff, who, when Taylor would not repay the loan, had repоrted to police that Taylor was selling drinks from his residence. Nonetheless, on the day of the shooting Rozier had expected no trоuble because Huff had told her that he had worked it out with Taylor.
Taylor told the police that he had shot Huff, had meant to shoot him, and he would have shot him again, had he been able. Taylor’s residence did not look as if a struggle had occurred, and Taylor told police that Huff had not touched him, nor did he see Huff with a weapon.
A person commits the offense of aggravated assault “when he or she assaults ... [w]ith a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury.” OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2). Aperson commits the offense of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony when that person has “on or within arm’s reach of his or her person a firearm . .. during the commission of, or the attempt to commit... [a]ny [felony] crime against or involving the person of another.” OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1). The evidence is sufficient to support Taylor’s convictions under these statutes.
2. Inconsistent verdict.
Taylor argues that the jury’s finding him not guilty of malice murder and felony murder is inconsistent with its finding him guilty of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He аcknowledges that Georgia has abolished the inconsistent verdict rule, under which “inconsistent verdicts in irreconcilable conflict in criminal cases warrant[ ] reversal.” Turner v. State,
Taylor argues that it is clear that the jury found him not guilty of malice murder and felony murder becausе it found that his actions were justified. In support of his contention that the jury’s rationale is transparent, Taylor points to the facts that the trial court instructed the jury extensively on justification and that during its deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge that asked, “The jury would like to know — if we beliеve it’s self defense, does that negate the charge of felony murder?” After allowing the state and Taylor to suggest their preferred resрonses to the question, the trial court responded in writing to the jury, “The jury has been provided all law that is applicable to this case and should continue its deliberations with the goal of reaching a unanimous verdict on all counts.”
Taylor argues that the jury’s question makes cleаr that it found him not guilty of malice murder and felony murder because it found his actions to be justified. We disagree. In Guajardo, supra,
3. Collateral estoppel.
Taylor argues that the jury’s not guilty verdicts conclusively decided thе question of whether he committed an aggravated assault with a firearm. Consequently, he argues, collateral estoppel bars his сonvictions of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Collateral estoppel is “inapplicable because [it] require[s] a previous action between the same parties, and the [not guilty verdicts] came in the sаme action now on appeal.” State v. Mizell,
4. Jury charge.
Taylor argues that the trial court committed plain error by failing to charge the jury on simple assault to complete the definition of aggravated assault. We disagree.
Where, as here, . . . the jury has already been properly instructed on general intent and there is no question regarding the perpetrator’s intent in shooting the victim ..., there is no need for the trial court to instruct the jury on simple assault in connection with its charge on aggravated assault.
Cantera v. State,
Judgment affirmed.