NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: June 24, 2025
S25A0646. FOOTS v. THE STATE.
PETERSON, Chief Justice.
Following a jury trial, Keitran Foots was convicted of malice
murder and other offenses related to the shooting death of Sharika
Bowman. 1 On appeal, Foots raises two claims of error based on the
trial court’s handling of a voluntary manslaughter instruction as it
related to the felony murder counts that were vacated by operation
1 The shooting occurred on March 30, 2018. In October 2018, a DeKalb
County grand jury returned an indictment charging Foots with malice murder, two counts of felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault family violence and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon), aggravated assault family violence, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Following a jury trial, the jury found Foots guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Foots to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder, a twenty-year concurrent term for aggravated assault family violence, a five-year concurrent term for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and a five-year concurrent term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Foots filed a timely motion for new trial, which he amended, and the trial court denied his motion. Foots filed a timely notice of appeal, which was docketed to this Court’s April 2025 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs. of law when the trial court entered a sentence on the malice murder
count. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 372 (4) (434 SE2d 479)
(1993). As a result, any challenge to those counts is moot. See, e.g.,
Hoehn v. State, 293 Ga. 127, 130 (3) (744 SE2d 46) (2013) (“[A]ny
issue with regard to Appellant’s felony murder count is now moot
because his felony murder conviction was vacated by operation of
law based on his conviction for the charge of malice murder.”
(citation and punctuation omitted)). Foots raises only one other
claim on appeal, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions. But the evidence presented at trial and set
out below was sufficient, so we affirm.
1. The trial evidence
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence
presented at trial showed the following. Foots began dating Bowman
in 2015 and later moved into Bowman’s house. Bowman had three
children prior to meeting Foots, and she and Foots had two children
together. Two of Bowman’s oldest children testified at trial about
Foots being physically violent towards Bowman. Once, Foots
2 slammed Bowman’s head against the wall while she was pregnant.
Another time, Bowman was sitting in her truck with the window
rolled down when Foots reached into the truck and pulled her hair.
A different time, Foots broke the handle to the driver’s side door of
Bowman’s truck when she would not let him enter the truck and
would not roll down the window.
On the morning of the shooting, Foots and Bowman were out
of the house, and Bowman’s oldest child, D.H., was left to watch over
his younger brothers. While D.H. waited for Bowman to arrive so
she could take him to school, Foots arrived at the house and sat in
the living room for about an hour before leaving. After Foots left,
Bowman sent a text message to D.H. to let him know she was
approaching the house. D.H. looked out the window and saw
Bowman pull into the driveway followed by Foots in his vehicle. D.H.
went to put on his shoes and almost immediately heard gunshots.
D.H. looked out the window again and saw Foots shooting into
Bowman’s truck. Foots circled the truck, tried to open the passenger
side door, and then fled.
3 Some of Bowman’s neighbors also heard multiple gunshots and
saw a black vehicle speed away. One neighbor who knew Foots said
that after hearing the gunshots, he looked outside his window and
saw Foots trying to open Bowman’s passenger door before fleeing.
D.H. soon called the police, and when they arrived, they
observed that the motor to Bowman’s truck was running, the doors
were locked, and Bowman was unresponsive and appeared to be
dead. Other first responders arrived, forced their way into
Bowman’s truck, found no signs of life, and pronounced her dead.
A total of six 9mm shell casings were recovered at the scene.
Bowman’s truck window had multiple defects and had been struck
by bullets at least five times. A medical examiner determined that
Bowman died from multiple gunshot wounds and recovered three
bullets from her body during an autopsy.
After the shooting, Foots fled to North Carolina to see an
acquaintance, Debbie Alston. On the way, Alston told Foots not to
speed and that he might get robbed because of the type of car he was
in. Foots responded that he was not worried about it because he had
4 four guns in his car. Alston met up with Foots, but when she learned
that he was wanted for murder, she contacted police to report that
he was staying at a hotel. Police went to the hotel, but Foots fled in
his vehicle and led police on a high-speed chase. Foots maintained
contact with Alston during the chase and asked her to pick him up
after he abandoned his car. Instead, Alston told police where to find
Foots, and police arrested him nearby. During a search of his car,
police found a 9mm gun. Forensic examination revealed that the gun
fired the bullets recovered from Bowman’s body and the shell
casings recovered at the scene.
Foot testified at trial as follows. He admitted he was a
convicted felon and claimed he did not own a gun. On the morning
of the shooting, he went to Bowman’s house, helped with the
youngest children, talked to D.H., briefly left the house, and
returned at Bowman’s request. Upon approaching Bowman’s truck,
she remained inside with the window rolled down. They got into a
heated argument, and, according to Foots, she pointed a 9mm gun
at him. Foots lunged at Bowman when she began to cock the
5 weapon. There was a struggle for the weapon during which she
grabbed his head. Foots broke free and disarmed her. Bowman rolled
up her window and began reaching over the passenger seat, at which
point Foots opened fire. Foots believed Bowman was reaching for
another gun and feared for his life. 2 There was hair found in
Bowman’s hand, but Foots did not know if the hair came from his
head.3
2. Sufficiency of the evidence
Foots concedes that the trial evidence clearly demonstrates
that he shot and killed Bowman, but he argues that the evidence did
not establish that he did so maliciously. He argues that the evidence
was consistent with his claim that he shot Bowman in self-defense
after she pointed a gun at him and he wrestled it away from her. We
reject this claim.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: June 24, 2025
S25A0646. FOOTS v. THE STATE.
PETERSON, Chief Justice.
Following a jury trial, Keitran Foots was convicted of malice
murder and other offenses related to the shooting death of Sharika
Bowman. 1 On appeal, Foots raises two claims of error based on the
trial court’s handling of a voluntary manslaughter instruction as it
related to the felony murder counts that were vacated by operation
1 The shooting occurred on March 30, 2018. In October 2018, a DeKalb
County grand jury returned an indictment charging Foots with malice murder, two counts of felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault family violence and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon), aggravated assault family violence, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Following a jury trial, the jury found Foots guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Foots to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder, a twenty-year concurrent term for aggravated assault family violence, a five-year concurrent term for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and a five-year concurrent term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Foots filed a timely motion for new trial, which he amended, and the trial court denied his motion. Foots filed a timely notice of appeal, which was docketed to this Court’s April 2025 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs. of law when the trial court entered a sentence on the malice murder
count. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 372 (4) (434 SE2d 479)
(1993). As a result, any challenge to those counts is moot. See, e.g.,
Hoehn v. State, 293 Ga. 127, 130 (3) (744 SE2d 46) (2013) (“[A]ny
issue with regard to Appellant’s felony murder count is now moot
because his felony murder conviction was vacated by operation of
law based on his conviction for the charge of malice murder.”
(citation and punctuation omitted)). Foots raises only one other
claim on appeal, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions. But the evidence presented at trial and set
out below was sufficient, so we affirm.
1. The trial evidence
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence
presented at trial showed the following. Foots began dating Bowman
in 2015 and later moved into Bowman’s house. Bowman had three
children prior to meeting Foots, and she and Foots had two children
together. Two of Bowman’s oldest children testified at trial about
Foots being physically violent towards Bowman. Once, Foots
2 slammed Bowman’s head against the wall while she was pregnant.
Another time, Bowman was sitting in her truck with the window
rolled down when Foots reached into the truck and pulled her hair.
A different time, Foots broke the handle to the driver’s side door of
Bowman’s truck when she would not let him enter the truck and
would not roll down the window.
On the morning of the shooting, Foots and Bowman were out
of the house, and Bowman’s oldest child, D.H., was left to watch over
his younger brothers. While D.H. waited for Bowman to arrive so
she could take him to school, Foots arrived at the house and sat in
the living room for about an hour before leaving. After Foots left,
Bowman sent a text message to D.H. to let him know she was
approaching the house. D.H. looked out the window and saw
Bowman pull into the driveway followed by Foots in his vehicle. D.H.
went to put on his shoes and almost immediately heard gunshots.
D.H. looked out the window again and saw Foots shooting into
Bowman’s truck. Foots circled the truck, tried to open the passenger
side door, and then fled.
3 Some of Bowman’s neighbors also heard multiple gunshots and
saw a black vehicle speed away. One neighbor who knew Foots said
that after hearing the gunshots, he looked outside his window and
saw Foots trying to open Bowman’s passenger door before fleeing.
D.H. soon called the police, and when they arrived, they
observed that the motor to Bowman’s truck was running, the doors
were locked, and Bowman was unresponsive and appeared to be
dead. Other first responders arrived, forced their way into
Bowman’s truck, found no signs of life, and pronounced her dead.
A total of six 9mm shell casings were recovered at the scene.
Bowman’s truck window had multiple defects and had been struck
by bullets at least five times. A medical examiner determined that
Bowman died from multiple gunshot wounds and recovered three
bullets from her body during an autopsy.
After the shooting, Foots fled to North Carolina to see an
acquaintance, Debbie Alston. On the way, Alston told Foots not to
speed and that he might get robbed because of the type of car he was
in. Foots responded that he was not worried about it because he had
4 four guns in his car. Alston met up with Foots, but when she learned
that he was wanted for murder, she contacted police to report that
he was staying at a hotel. Police went to the hotel, but Foots fled in
his vehicle and led police on a high-speed chase. Foots maintained
contact with Alston during the chase and asked her to pick him up
after he abandoned his car. Instead, Alston told police where to find
Foots, and police arrested him nearby. During a search of his car,
police found a 9mm gun. Forensic examination revealed that the gun
fired the bullets recovered from Bowman’s body and the shell
casings recovered at the scene.
Foot testified at trial as follows. He admitted he was a
convicted felon and claimed he did not own a gun. On the morning
of the shooting, he went to Bowman’s house, helped with the
youngest children, talked to D.H., briefly left the house, and
returned at Bowman’s request. Upon approaching Bowman’s truck,
she remained inside with the window rolled down. They got into a
heated argument, and, according to Foots, she pointed a 9mm gun
at him. Foots lunged at Bowman when she began to cock the
5 weapon. There was a struggle for the weapon during which she
grabbed his head. Foots broke free and disarmed her. Bowman rolled
up her window and began reaching over the passenger seat, at which
point Foots opened fire. Foots believed Bowman was reaching for
another gun and feared for his life. 2 There was hair found in
Bowman’s hand, but Foots did not know if the hair came from his
head.3
2. Sufficiency of the evidence
Foots concedes that the trial evidence clearly demonstrates
that he shot and killed Bowman, but he argues that the evidence did
not establish that he did so maliciously. He argues that the evidence
was consistent with his claim that he shot Bowman in self-defense
after she pointed a gun at him and he wrestled it away from her. We
reject this claim.
2 Other witnesses confirmed that Bowman owned a gun, but they did not
say she owned multiple guns or describe the gun she owned. Bowman’s daughter stated that Bowman generally kept the gun in the garage and never had it in her purse or in her truck, but police did not find a gun during a search of her house after the shooting.
3 There is no indication that the hair was tested.
6 In considering a claim that evidence was insufficient in
violation of federal due process under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S.
307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), “our review is limited to an
evaluation of whether the trial evidence, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the verdicts, is sufficient to authorize a rational
trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
of the crimes of which he was convicted.” Goodman v. State, 313 Ga.
762, 766 (2) (a) (873 SE2d 150) (2022) (citation and punctuation
omitted). “We put aside any questions about conflicting evidence, the
credibility of witnesses, or the weight of the evidence, leaving the
resolution of such things to the discretion of the trier of fact.” Id. at
766-767 (2) (a) (citation and punctuation omitted). “When a
defendant presents evidence that he was justified in using deadly
force, the State bears the burden of disproving the defense beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Williams v. State, 316 Ga. 147, 150 (1) (886 SE2d
818) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted). But “[i]t is the role
of the jury to evaluate the evidence and, when doing so, the jury is
free to reject any evidence in support of a justification defense and
7 to accept the evidence that the shooting was not done in self-
defense.” Id. (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Gibbs v.
State, 309 Ga. 562, 565 (847 SE2d 156 (2020) (“[T]he question of
justification . . . is for the jury to decide.”).
Here, the only evidence supporting a self-defense claim is
Foots’s self-serving testimony. The jury was not only authorized to
reject this testimony, see Williams, 316 Ga. at 151 (1), but if it
disbelieved Foots’s claim of self-defense, the jury could also consider
his testimony as substantive evidence of guilt where there was some
corroborative evidence pointing to guilt, see Mims v. State, 310 Ga.
853, 855 (854 SE2d 742) (2021). There was such evidence here, as
the jury could infer that his actions after the shooting were
inconsistent with his self-defense claim, as he immediately fled from
the crime scene, went to another state, and led police on a high-
speed car chase there. See State v. Orr, 305 Ga. 729, 741 (4) (a) (827
SE2d 892) (2019) (“[T]he fact of an accused’s flight, escape from
custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false
name, and related conduct, is admissible as evidence of
8 consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.” (citation and
punctuation omitted)); Renner v. State, 260 Ga. 515, 517 (3) (b) (397
SE2d 683) (1990) (“The fact that a suspect flees the scene of a crime
points to the question of guilt in a circumstantial manner.”).
As to his other convictions, Foots raises no specific sufficiency
arguments, relying only on his self-defense claim. The evidence
described above shows that he is a convicted felon and he assaulted
Bowman, the mother of two of his children, with a deadly weapon
when he shot and killed her. Because the jury was authorized to
reject Foots’s self-defense claim, the evidence was sufficient to
support his aggravated assault family violence and firearms
convictions. See Walker v. State, 312 Ga. 232, 235-236 (1) (862 SE2d
285) (2021) (because the jury was authorized to disbelieve the
defendant’s self-defense claim, the evidence was sufficient to
support the firearm-possession conviction); Merritt v. State, 311 Ga.
875, 877-878 (1) (860 SE2d 455) (2021) (evidence was sufficient to
support aggravated assault family violence where defendant shot
and killed his wife and mother to his children, and evidence
9 authorized the jury to reject defendant’s accident theory).
Judgment affirmed. Warren, PJ, and Bethel, Ellington, McMillian, LaGrua, Colvin, and Pinson, JJ, concur.