CARLEY, Presiding Justice.
A jury found Eugene Neal guilty of the malice murder of his fiancée Dorothy Driskell. The trial court entered judgment of conviction on that guilty verdict and sentenced Neal to life imprisonment. After a motion for new trial was denied, Neal appealed to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to this Court.
1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdict, the evidence shows that, in the master bedroom of his house, Neal placed the victim in a chokehold until she passed out. The medical examiner testified that the cause of death was manual strangulation with significant force for at least four minutes. In a statement at the scene and during his testimony, Neal stated that the victim attacked him out of jealousy and bit him and that he was defending himself. However, Neal admitted that he kept the victim in a chokehold until she stopped struggling and that she fell to the floor when he let go. No drugs or alcohol was found in the victim’s blood. About 13 years before, Neal choked his then-wife, and there were several other instances of physical abuse by Neal during that marriage.
Neal argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cause of the victim’s death was any act or omission by Neal instead of the severing of her jugular vein by emergency medical personnel during intubation. However, the testimony shows that the emergency personnel actually punctured the jugular vein while attempting to start an I.V line and that such a puncture was normal in the circumstances. There is no evidence that the medical treatment by emergency personnel was negligent. Even if it were negligent, it would not normally constitute an intervening cause unless, unlike here, it was a gross mistreatment. Robert E. Cleary, Jr., Ga. Criminal Offenses and Defenses, Homicide (I) (D) (2011 ed.). See also Hendrick v. State, 257 Ga. 17, 18 (5) (354 SE2d 433) (1987); 1 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.4 (f) (5) (2d ed.).
Contrary to Neal’s summary of the medical examiner’s testi[564]*564mony, that witness testified that blood in the victim’s neck muscles may have come from the punctured vein, but that the blood in her lungs did not. Although the medical examiner did not “think” that the bleeding from that vein contributed to the victim’s death, he testified that there was not enough blood from the vein for the victim to bleed to death. Based on the medical examiner’s testimony, a rational jury could conclude that Neal’s strangulation of the victim either caused or directly and materially contributed to her death and that the emergency treatment was at most a secondary, rather than intervening, cause of death. See Green v. State, 266 Ga. 758, 760 (2) (b) (470 SE2d 884) (1996); Bishop v. State, 257 Ga. 136, 140 (2) (356 SE2d 503) (1987); Larkin v. State, 247 Ga. 586 (1) (278 SE2d 365) (1981). In short, the jury was authorized to reject the theoretical possibility of causation offered by Neal. See Shields v. State, 285 Ga. 372, 375 (1) (677 SE2d 100) (2009).
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Neal was guilty of murder. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Neal contends that the trial court erred in admitting, over defense objections, evidence of allegedly similar transactions involving his ex-wife and occurring a decade or more before the victim’s death here.
Both the prior transactions and the murder in this case involved violent assaults by Neal against women with whom he was intimately involved.
[T]hey involved acts of violence that were either entirely unprovoked or disproportionate to any provocation. Moreover, “(i)n cases of domestic violence, prior incidents of abuse against family members or sexual partners are more generally permitted because there is a logical connection between violent acts against two different persons with whom the accused had a similar emotional or intimate attachment.” [Cit.]
Hall v. State, 287 Ga. 755, 757 (2) (699 SE2d 321) (2010). The similar transactions were offered to prove intent, bent of mind, course of conduct, and common scheme or plan. “When similar transaction evidence is admitted for these purposes, a lesser degree of similarity is required than when such evidence is introduced to prove identity. [Cits.]” Smith v. State, 273 Ga. 356, 357 (2) (541 SE2d 362) (2001). See also Abdullah v. State, 284 Ga. 399, 401 (3) (667 SE2d 584) (2008). Furthermore, the lapses of time of up to 13 years
between the prior incidents and the crime [ ] at issue here do [565]*565not require exclusion of the evidence. [Cits.] Given that the similar transaction evidence reflects [Neal’s] behavior towards prior spouses, we conclude that any prejudice from the age of these prior incidents was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence under the particular facts of this case and the purpose for which the similar transactions were offered. [Cit.]
Hall v. State, supra. Moreover, “[w]e find no merit in [Neal’s] contention that the similar transaction evidence was overly prejudicial, as the trial court gave detailed limiting instructions [before] it was admitted and at the close of the case. [Cit.]” Rivera v. State, 282 Ga. 355, 359 (3) (647 SE2d 70) (2007).
“Because the evidence was sufficient to establish the required similarity between the charged crime[ ] and the [assaults Neal] inflicted on [his ex-wife], the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence.” Hall v. State, supra.
3. Immediately after charging the jury on self-defense in the language of OCGA § 16-3-21 (a), the trial court, using the language of subsection (b) (3) almost verbatim, gave the following additional charge:
A person is not justified in using force if that person was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates his intent to withdraw to the other person, and the other person still continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
The giving of this charge is enumerated as error on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence that Neal was the first aggressor.
“Where an instruction closely tracks the language of OCGA § 16-3-21 [(a) and (b)], as the charge in this case does, giving that instruction is not harmful, even when the exceptions described by subsection (b) do not apply. [Cit.]” Reese v. State, 270 Ga. App. 522, 524 (3) (607 SE2d 165) (2004). See also Lee v. State, 265 Ga. 112, 113-114 (3) (a) (454 SE2d 761) (1995); Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624, 628 (4) (331 SE2d 516) (1985); Hayles v. State, 287 Ga. App. 601, 603 (1) (c) (651 SE2d 860) (2007).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CARLEY, Presiding Justice.
A jury found Eugene Neal guilty of the malice murder of his fiancée Dorothy Driskell. The trial court entered judgment of conviction on that guilty verdict and sentenced Neal to life imprisonment. After a motion for new trial was denied, Neal appealed to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to this Court.
1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdict, the evidence shows that, in the master bedroom of his house, Neal placed the victim in a chokehold until she passed out. The medical examiner testified that the cause of death was manual strangulation with significant force for at least four minutes. In a statement at the scene and during his testimony, Neal stated that the victim attacked him out of jealousy and bit him and that he was defending himself. However, Neal admitted that he kept the victim in a chokehold until she stopped struggling and that she fell to the floor when he let go. No drugs or alcohol was found in the victim’s blood. About 13 years before, Neal choked his then-wife, and there were several other instances of physical abuse by Neal during that marriage.
Neal argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cause of the victim’s death was any act or omission by Neal instead of the severing of her jugular vein by emergency medical personnel during intubation. However, the testimony shows that the emergency personnel actually punctured the jugular vein while attempting to start an I.V line and that such a puncture was normal in the circumstances. There is no evidence that the medical treatment by emergency personnel was negligent. Even if it were negligent, it would not normally constitute an intervening cause unless, unlike here, it was a gross mistreatment. Robert E. Cleary, Jr., Ga. Criminal Offenses and Defenses, Homicide (I) (D) (2011 ed.). See also Hendrick v. State, 257 Ga. 17, 18 (5) (354 SE2d 433) (1987); 1 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.4 (f) (5) (2d ed.).
Contrary to Neal’s summary of the medical examiner’s testi[564]*564mony, that witness testified that blood in the victim’s neck muscles may have come from the punctured vein, but that the blood in her lungs did not. Although the medical examiner did not “think” that the bleeding from that vein contributed to the victim’s death, he testified that there was not enough blood from the vein for the victim to bleed to death. Based on the medical examiner’s testimony, a rational jury could conclude that Neal’s strangulation of the victim either caused or directly and materially contributed to her death and that the emergency treatment was at most a secondary, rather than intervening, cause of death. See Green v. State, 266 Ga. 758, 760 (2) (b) (470 SE2d 884) (1996); Bishop v. State, 257 Ga. 136, 140 (2) (356 SE2d 503) (1987); Larkin v. State, 247 Ga. 586 (1) (278 SE2d 365) (1981). In short, the jury was authorized to reject the theoretical possibility of causation offered by Neal. See Shields v. State, 285 Ga. 372, 375 (1) (677 SE2d 100) (2009).
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Neal was guilty of murder. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Neal contends that the trial court erred in admitting, over defense objections, evidence of allegedly similar transactions involving his ex-wife and occurring a decade or more before the victim’s death here.
Both the prior transactions and the murder in this case involved violent assaults by Neal against women with whom he was intimately involved.
[T]hey involved acts of violence that were either entirely unprovoked or disproportionate to any provocation. Moreover, “(i)n cases of domestic violence, prior incidents of abuse against family members or sexual partners are more generally permitted because there is a logical connection between violent acts against two different persons with whom the accused had a similar emotional or intimate attachment.” [Cit.]
Hall v. State, 287 Ga. 755, 757 (2) (699 SE2d 321) (2010). The similar transactions were offered to prove intent, bent of mind, course of conduct, and common scheme or plan. “When similar transaction evidence is admitted for these purposes, a lesser degree of similarity is required than when such evidence is introduced to prove identity. [Cits.]” Smith v. State, 273 Ga. 356, 357 (2) (541 SE2d 362) (2001). See also Abdullah v. State, 284 Ga. 399, 401 (3) (667 SE2d 584) (2008). Furthermore, the lapses of time of up to 13 years
between the prior incidents and the crime [ ] at issue here do [565]*565not require exclusion of the evidence. [Cits.] Given that the similar transaction evidence reflects [Neal’s] behavior towards prior spouses, we conclude that any prejudice from the age of these prior incidents was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence under the particular facts of this case and the purpose for which the similar transactions were offered. [Cit.]
Hall v. State, supra. Moreover, “[w]e find no merit in [Neal’s] contention that the similar transaction evidence was overly prejudicial, as the trial court gave detailed limiting instructions [before] it was admitted and at the close of the case. [Cit.]” Rivera v. State, 282 Ga. 355, 359 (3) (647 SE2d 70) (2007).
“Because the evidence was sufficient to establish the required similarity between the charged crime[ ] and the [assaults Neal] inflicted on [his ex-wife], the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence.” Hall v. State, supra.
3. Immediately after charging the jury on self-defense in the language of OCGA § 16-3-21 (a), the trial court, using the language of subsection (b) (3) almost verbatim, gave the following additional charge:
A person is not justified in using force if that person was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates his intent to withdraw to the other person, and the other person still continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
The giving of this charge is enumerated as error on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence that Neal was the first aggressor.
“Where an instruction closely tracks the language of OCGA § 16-3-21 [(a) and (b)], as the charge in this case does, giving that instruction is not harmful, even when the exceptions described by subsection (b) do not apply. [Cit.]” Reese v. State, 270 Ga. App. 522, 524 (3) (607 SE2d 165) (2004). See also Lee v. State, 265 Ga. 112, 113-114 (3) (a) (454 SE2d 761) (1995); Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624, 628 (4) (331 SE2d 516) (1985); Hayles v. State, 287 Ga. App. 601, 603 (1) (c) (651 SE2d 860) (2007). In the cited cases, the trial court apparently instructed the jury on every exception to self-defense contained in subsection (b), and the defendant contended that either none or only one of them was applicable. In the case now before us, the trial court’s instruction encompassed only the third exception in subsection (b) and therefore was more clearly harmless than the charges in the above-cited cases which included all of the exceptions [566]*566in subsection (b) and which nevertheless did not constitute reversible error. Assuming that there was no evidence that Neal was the aggressor, the charge on OCGA § 16-3-21 (b) (3) “was at most merely irrelevant, being one of a number of stated exceptions to the rule concerning the use of force in self-defense.” Hill v. State, 155 Ga. App. 718, 719 (1) (272 SE2d 508) (1980). See also Lowe v. State, 267 Ga. 410, 413 (4) (478 SE2d 762) (1996).
Moreover, the trial court not only instructed the jury on self-defense as set forth in subsection (a), it also fully charged on the doctrine of reasonable fears, on the absence of a duty to retreat, and on the State’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified.
The true question is whether an abstractly correct charge not authorized by the evidence is calculated to confuse and mislead the jury. . . . [Wjhere it is obviously highly probable that the error, if existing, did not contribute to the verdict, a reversal will not result. [Cits.] Taking the charge as a whole we find no reversible error.
Hill v. State, supra. See also Lowe v. State, supra; Martin v. State, 164 Ga. App. 500 (3) (297 SE2d 112) (1982).
4. Neal further contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present readily available testimony by his ex-girlfriend regarding his peaceful history, nature, and character.
In order to succeed on [his] claim of ineffective assistance, [Neal] must prove both that [his] trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that the trial result would have been different if not for the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong. [Cits.] In reviewing the trial court’s decision, “ ‘(w)e accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.’ (Cit.)” [Cit.]
Smith v. State, 288 Ga. 348, 352 (8) (703 SE2d 629) (2010).
Neal argues that testimony by his ex-girlfriend would have rebutted the similar transaction evidence which suggested a character for and predisposition to violence by Neal in such relationships. However, “ ‘[w]hether to introduce character evidence and poten[567]*567tially open the door for impeachment is clearly one of tactics and strategy.’ [Cit.]” Smith v. State, supra at 354 (8) (i). See also Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 659 (3) (c) (581 SE2d 518) (2003). Trial counsel testified that testimony regarding Neal’s peaceful character would have opened the door to additional adverse character evidence which had been excluded by the trial court, including the testimony of another ex-girlfriend who was present and ready to testify about Neal’s bad character. The prior admission of a similar transaction from which the jury may draw certain limited inferences does not make unreasonable defense counsel’s strategy to avoid offering testimony of the defendant’s nonviolent character which would open the door to additional adverse character evidence. See Cook v. State, 255 Ga. 565, 584-585 (17) (g) (340 SE2d 843) (1986). Even assuming that
trial counsel’s decision not to call character witnesses on [Neal’s] behalf [w]as ill-advised and based on an evaluation of the evidence which hindsight shows to be incorrect, we nevertheless regard that decision as being a matter of trial strategy, which, even if erroneous, does not itself constitute a denial of effective assistance of counsel. [Cits.]
Johnson v. State, 266 Ga. 380, 382 (2), fn. 3 (467 SE2d 542) (1996). Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
The crime occurred on August 17, 2006, and the grand jury returned an indictment on March 9, 2007. The jury found Neal guilty on October 31, 2008 and, on that same day, the trial court entered the judgment of conviction and sentence. The motion for new trial was filed on November 6, 2008, amended on October 1, 2010 and December 10, 2010, and denied on February 4, 2011. Neal filed the notice of appeal on February 25, 2011, and the Court of Appeals transferred the case on July 1, 201Í. The case was docketed in this Court for the September 2011 term and orally argued on January 24, 2012.