Carter v. State
Decision Date | 04 April 2016 |
Docket Number | No. S15G1047.,S15G1047. |
Citation | 298 Ga. 867,785 S.E.2d 274 |
Parties | CARTER v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Charles Henry Frier, Atlanta, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Paige Reese Whitaker, David K. Getachew–Smith, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
, Justice.
Chernard Carter and his two co-defendants were involved in a gunfight at an apartment complex, and a stray bullet killed Lynette Reese. Carter was charged, in relevant part, with malice murder and three counts of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault. At trial, the jury was also instructed on provocation and voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of both malice murder and felony murder. The jury found Carter not guilty of malice murder and not guilty of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of malice murder. The jury also found Carter not guilty of each count of felony murder (i.e., the two counts relating to Carter shooting at each of his co-defendants and causing Reese's death, and one charge relating to Carter committing an aggravated assault by shooting Reese, which led to her death). However, it found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of each count of felony murder. Thus, Carter had been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of the alleged felony murder of Reese, but had also been found not guilty of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of the alleged malice murder of Reese.
On appeal, Carter argued that the verdict was an impermissible “repugnant verdict” because he was found “both not guilty and guilty” of the same crime of voluntary manslaughter with respect to the same victim, Reese. See Wiley v. State, 124 Ga.App. 654, 185 S.E.2d 582 (1971)
( )(citation omitted). The Court of Appeals upheld Carter's voluntary manslaughter conviction, and we granted Carter's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in this ruling. As explained more fully below, although we disagree with some of the Court of Appeals' reasoning, we conclude that the Court of Appeals ultimately reached the correct result in upholding Carter's conviction for voluntary manslaughter. We therefore affirm.
]; Smashum v. State, 261 Ga. 248(2), 403 S.E.2d 797 (1991).1
Turner, supra, 283 Ga. at 20(2), 655 S.E.2d 589
.
Carter claims that the difference between repugnant verdicts and inconsistent verdicts is the fact that inconsistent verdicts involve a finding of guilt and an acquittal on entirely separate offenses, whereas repugnant verdicts involve a finding of guilt and an acquittal on the same offense. However, under the facts of this case, voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of malice murder is not the same offense as voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of felony murder, and the two voluntary manslaughter verdicts can be logically reconciled. They are merely two different offenses upon which the jury was free to find Carter guilty or not guilty based on the facts of the case as interpreted by the jury. Accordingly, there is no repugnant verdict, and we need not decide the question whether the rule that we announced in Milam, supra—which forbids a defendant from attacking as inconsistent a verdict of guilty on one count and not guilty on a different count—is just as applicable in repugnant verdict cases as it is in other inconsistent verdict cases.2
(Emphasis supplied.) In this regard, a person commits the offense of malice murder “when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.” OCGA § 16–5–1(a)
. Malice aforethought requires an express or implied intent to kill. See OCGA § 16–5–1(b). Thus, the “circumstances which would otherwise be [malice] murder” but for the necessary provocation that would reduce the offense to voluntary manslaughter would consist of a defendant acting with the intent to kill another person. Accordingly, in order for a person to be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of malice murder, that person must act with the intent to kill, but must also have taken his or her actions “as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person.” OCGA § 16–5–2.
However, malice murder is not the only manner in which a defendant may commit the crime of murder. There is also felony murder, which requires only that a defendant, while “in the commission of a felony ... cause [ ] the death of another human being irrespective of malice. ” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 16–5–1(c)
. A defendant need not act with an intent to kill at the time that he or she took the actions that led to the victim's death. Knight v. State, 271 Ga. 557, 559(2), 521 S.E.2d 819 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Owens
...upon which the jury would be free to find the defendant guilty or not guilty based on the facts of the case. See Carter v. State , 298 Ga. 867, 869, 785 S.E.2d 274 (2016) (no repugnant verdict on "two different offenses upon which the jury was free to find [the defendant] guilty or not guil......
-
McElrath v. State
...We note that, in Blevins v. State , 343 Ga. App. 539, 808 S.E.2d 740 (2017), the Court of Appeals, while analyzing Carter v. State , 298 Ga. 867, 785 S.E.2d 274 (2016), ruled that Carter supported the broad application of Milam ’s inconsistent verdict rule to abolish repugnant verdicts. In ......
-
Blevins v. State
...acquitted on another, because self-contradictory and repugnant verdicts cannot stand). However, in a recent opinion, Carter v. State, 298 Ga. 867, 785 S.E.2d 274 (2016), our Supreme Court noted that it never had adopted the Wiley rationale and that the inconsistent verdict rule had been abo......
-
Smith v. State
...not guilty verdicts against a defendant [on entirely separate offenses] ... that cannot be logically reconciled." Carter v. State , 298 Ga. 867, 868-69, 785 S.E.2d 274 (2016). The inconsistent verdict rule was abolished by our Supreme Court in Milam v. State , 255 Ga. 560 (2), 341 S.E.2d 21......