Hartman v. State
Opinion
A jury convicted William Anthony Hartman of malice murder in the shooting death of John Daniel Bearden, Jr., aggravated battery and aggravated assault in the shooting of Eugene William Meeks, and burglary and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. 1 He appeals contending that the trial court erred in admitting *614 “bad character” evidence and that the trial court improperly increased his sentence. Because the “character” evidence was admissible to show motive and because the court had the authority to conform the sentence to a statutory requirement, we affirm.
The evidence at trial showed that on October 13, 1994, Hartman got drunk and was thrown out of the bar at the Holiday Inn in Dalton. He then talked Butch Ivey into driving him to the residence of Bearden, whom Hartman believed had informed on him to the police. Bearden and Meeks were inside the residence and when Bearden answered Hartman’s knock, Hartman shot him with a 12 gauge shotgun. Hartman then shot Meeks in the back as he tried to flee. Both Ivey and Meeks testified against Hartman.
1. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Hartman guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. 2
2. Hartman contends that the state improperly introduced evidence of his “bad character” when two witnesses testified about his prior arrest on drug charges. This evidence was relevant because the state contended that Hartman’s motive for the murder was his belief that the victim had snitched on him, resulting in his drug arrest. Hartman also contends this was prior difficulties evidence between himself and the victim and the state failed to follow the procedure set forth in Maxwell v. State. 3 Hartman, however, failed to raise this ground as an objection at trial, and may not raise it for the first time on appeal. 4 Regarding the other “bad character” testimony of which Hartman complains, either the trial court sustained Hartman’s objections, or Hartman failed to object to the testimony and, therefore, he failed to preserve these issues for appeal. 5
At trial, the state introduced a tape-recording of a conversation among Hartman, his sister, and their mother. Hartman contends that the tape was inadmissible because it contained references to Hartman’s prior drug use and because Hartman used obscene language during the conversation and, therefore, the tape demonstrated Hartman’s bad character. A review of the record shows that the tape did impeach the testimony of Hartman and his sister and, therefore, was relevant and admissible in spite of the tape’s negative reflection on Hartman’s character. 6
3. Hartman also contends that the tape was inadmissible under OCGA §§ 16-11-62 and 16-11-67. Those statutes apply only to intentional interception of conversations. The conversation here was inadvertently recorded on a third person’s answering machine when Hartman’s sister failed to disconnect a line in multi-party conversation.
4. Hartman contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. 7 After reviewing the record, we conclude that Hartman has failed to make the required showing of prejudice. 8
5. The trial court originally sentenced Hartman to five years on the possession of a firearm count, with the sentence to run concurrently with the 20-year sentence on the burglary count. After Hartmem filed a motion for new trial, the trial court amended the sentence so that the sentence on the possession charge would run consecutively to the burglary count. OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) requires that a sentence on a charge of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony run consecutively to any other sentence imposed. The trial court’s original sentence was contrary to this statute. Therefore, the trial court did not err in amending the sentence to conform to the law. 9
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
469 S.E.2d 163 (Hartman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.