Booth v. State

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Delroy T. Booth’s convictions for malice murder and other crimes arising from the death of Shantle Vason, while vacating the trial court’s merger of the felony murder counts. The court held that reading the indictment during the competency hearing was not error, that evidence of Booth’s prior assaults was admissible to show intent, and that the State’s closing argument concerning DNA evidence was permissible. The court did not remand for resentencing because the predicate felonies were not separately charged and no verdicts had been rendered on them.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not err by reading the indictment to the special jury because the nature and gravity of the charges were relevant to whether Booth understood the proceedings and could assist his attorneys.
2. An unobjected-to jury-charge claim is subject to the four-prong plain-error test under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b), but Booth failed to establish even an error because the indictment was properly read during the competency hearing.
3. The prior assaults against Booth's former girlfriends were relevant to prove intent for the aggravated-assault charge and therefore satisfied the first prong of OCGA § 24-4-404 (b).
4. The State's argument that the full DNA profile from Vason's rectum was more recent than the partial profile from her vaginal area was permissible because it was a reasonable deduction from the evidence and expert testimony.
5. The felony-murder counts did not merge into the malice-murder count; they were vacated by operation of law. The court vacated the trial court's merger of those counts but did not require resentencing because the predicate felonies were not separately charged and no verdicts were rendered on them, and the sentence was otherwise proper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court plainly erred by reading the indictment to the special jury during Booth's competency proceeding.
2. Whether evidence of Booth's prior assaults against former girlfriends was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) to prove intent.
3. Whether the State made impermissible closing arguments by inferring that the relative completeness of DNA profiles indicated the relative timing of contributions.
4. Whether the trial court erred by merging the felony-murder counts into the malice-murder count and whether resentencing was required.

Disposition

other