Hamilton v. State - Appeal of Felony Murder Convictions

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: Ma rch 3, 2026 S26A 0435. HAMILTON v. THE ST ATE. P ETERSON, Chief J ust ice. Rodri q uez Lamont Ham ilton a ppeals his co nvictio n s for felony murder and oth er of fenses, st emmi ng from the fatal shooting of Jamari us C owart and no n - fatal sho oting o f Allys ia Br yant. 1 Hami lton arg ues that the t rial cou rt abus ed i ts discr etion by (1) 1 The crimes occurred on Novem ber 2, 2022. On Januar y 23, 2023, a Glynn County gran d jury returned an indictm ent chargi ng Hamilton with malice murder (C ount 1), felony m urder predic ated on the aggravat ed assault of Cowart (Count 2), aggravated assault for shoo ting Bryan t (Count 3), a nd two counts of possession of a firearm durin g the comm ission of a felony (C ounts 4 and 5). At a December 2023 tri al, a jury found Ham ilton not guilty of m alice murder and guilty o f the other cou nts. On December 21, 2023, the trial cour t sentenced Hamilton to life in prison wit hout the possibilit y of parole for felony murder and consec utive sentences of 20 years in prison for the aggravated assault of Bryant and 5 years in prison for each of the firearm possession counts. Hamilton filed a timely m otion for new trial, w hich was amended in May 2025. F ollowin g a hearing, the trial court denied the motion in an order entered on October 1, 2025. Hamilton fi led a timely notice of appeal, and the case was docketed to this Court’s ter m beginning in December 202 5 and submitted for consid eration on the briefs. NOTICE: T his opini on is subje ct to mo dificat ion res ultin g from motion s for re consi derat ion unde r Supre me Court Rule 27, the Co urt’s r econsid eratio n, and ed itorial revisio ns by th e Report er of Decis ions. Th e versi on of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geo rgia Rep orts, desig nated as the “Final Copy, ” will r eplace a ny prior version on the Court ’s website and doc ket. A bound volume of the Georgia Repo rts will contain the final a nd officia l text of t he opinio n.

2 denying a mot ion f or mis trial ba sed o n an em otional o utbur st in t he courtr oom; (2) de nyi ng a m otion f or mistri al b ased on testim ony b y an off icer that Hamilton ha d invo ked his right to remain s ilent; and (3) admitt ing vario us evid ence about prior difficult ies betw een Hamilt on and the vict ims. Ha milton als o makes a cumulat ive e rror argum ent. We conclude that Hamilto n has no t sho wn an a buse of discr etion by the trial court in denying his re quest s for mistria l and tha t a ny ab use of discret ion in admitt ing t he ev idence in que stion was harm les s, an d we a ffirm. The evid ence at trial sho wed that i n N ovemb er 2 022, Hamil ton and Br yant were sha ring a home in Bruns wick wit h t heir c hildre n. They had bee n in and out of a romant ic r elatio nship for the previ ous decade, but in Nov embe r 20 22, Bry ant ha d bee n dati ng C owa rt inste ad for ab out s ix m onths. As di scussed in m ore det ail bel ow, Brya nt and Hamilto n’s r elatio nship ha d be en tumult uous, w ith Hamilt on at time s being vio lent tow ard Brya nt and stea ling her belo ngings, both bef ore and a fter s he beg an seein g Cowart. Bryant tes tified at trial as fol low s. On t he night of Nov ember

3 2, 20 22, B ryant to ld H amil ton that she was g oing to ch urch. Instead, she wen t to a r est aurant i n Bru nsw ick w here Cow art w as wo rkin g. When C owar t got off work, Bryan t drove off in h er c ar with Cowa rt in th e passen ger seat. At s ome p oin t, Cowar t asked Bry ant i f a tru ck on the r oad w as h er “baby dadd y cab, ” and B ryant looke d an d recogn ized H amil ton’s t ruck. Sho rtl y therea fter, w h en stopp ed at a red light at the int erse ction of Crispe n and Old J esup, Brya nt observe d Hamilt on’s truck stop ped n ext to her car. The p assen ger side w indow of B ryant’s car was d own. No words were ex ch anged, but Ham ilton fi red s eve ral sh ots at B ryant’ s car. Bryant coul d see Hami lton’s eyes and re cognize d that he wa s firing her black Gl ock. 40 - cal iber h andg un — which she ha d le ft at hom e that night — with his ar m out of t he window. Bryan t was shot in t he back, and s he could t ell that C owar t had been shot. Brya nt co ntinued driv ing straigh t, w hi le Ham ilton turn ed r igh t, befor e Bry an t stopp ed an d called 911, then encounter ed polic e. Bryant had been d riving a silv er Chrysle r sedan and rep orte d tha t Ham ilton drove a silver Ford F- 150 tru ck.

4 A n offi cer d rivi ng n earby en cou ntered B ryant’s veh icl e approa chin g at a hig h rate o f speed short ly afte r 11:00 p.m. Bryant drove ar oun d the offic er, sto pped her car i n th e midd le of th e road, got out of the car, an d ran over s creaming that he r boyfriend h ad been s hot. Cowart died at the scen e. Bryan t told 91 1 a nd a respon din g offic er th at h er “ baby d addy” h ad shot h er boy fri end, told the res pondi ng of fice r that sh e believed that she ha d been shot, as well, a nd identif i ed H amilton by n ame to the responding o f fice r and an off icer w ho in terv iewed her at t he hosp ital. A mot orist, Ni col as Fry ar, testi fied at trial about w hat h e s aw and hea rd near th e inters ection of Cri spen an d Ol d Je sup a t th e time of t he shooting. He said h e saw a l igh t - colored truck next to a d ark - colored car, th e d river of the truck l ookin g “ani mat ed.” Just bef ore a stopli ght tu rned g reen, he heard a “pop, pop, pop,” a fter whi ch th e two veh icles drove o ff fas t in oppos ite directi ons. Survei ll ance vi deo f rom an ar ea bu siness from the ni ght of the shoo ting showed a silve r p ickup truck — which appeared to be a Ford F - 150 an d which Bryant identif ied a s Hamilto n’s — turning o n

5 to Cris pen a few mi nutes befor e Bry ant’s car did. O ther su rveillan ce video s how ed Bry ant’s car passin g the truck, w hi ch h ad been park ed along Cris pen and beg an to move only as Bryan t’s car ap proa ched. Anoth er vid eo show ed th e two vehi cles side by si de a t th e inters ection of C rispen and Old Jesu p, bef ore th e sedan pro ceeded str aight and the truc k tur ned right. The jur y also hea rd fro m Zacchaeus Bento n, an acqua intanc e of Ha milto n. Bento n rec alled a night on whic h Ha milton a rrived unex pectedl y at Ben ton’s h ouse, wh ich was a few mi les away fr om the site o f the shoot ing. H amil ton a sked fo r a ride an d permi ssion to leave h is tru ck at Ben ton’s h ouse. Benton drov e Hamilt on about fi ve min utes aw ay an d dropp ed him off at a stop s ign. Surve illance video outsi de Ben ton’s house show ed a perso n identif ied by Benton as Hamilt on arr iving at 11:38 p.m. on the night o f Novemb er 2, 2022, then le aving with Bent on in Be nton’s vehic le. On cr oss - examin at ion, Bento n test ified that H amilto n had left his ve hicle the re befo re and that “ nothing t hat night was out of the or dinary” t o him. Police found Hami lton’s truck at Benton ’s h ous e. Abou t a m onth afte r the

6 shoo tings, Hamilt on tur ned himse lf in to law e nforceme nt wit h the assist ance of cou nsel. Shell casin gs re cover ed fr om both th e in terse ction of Crispen and Ol d Jes up an d Bry ant’s veh icl e were fi red from the s ame firearm, bul lets rec overed f rom Cowart ’s autop sy an d a bul let fou nd in B ryant’s vehi cle were f ired f rom the s ame fi rearm, and those cas ings and bullets all were consis tent wit h be ing fired from a Glock.40 - cali ber pis tol. Bryan t testifi ed that sh e neve r saw her Gl ock .40 - calib er ha ndgun af ter the night o f the shooting, altho ugh po lice came an d col lect ed the gu n’s b ox m onth s after the sh o oting. A detecti ve t estif ied that no . 40 - calibe r han dgun was ev er r ecove red in conne ction w ith the c ase. Hamilt on did not t est ify at t rial. His l awyer em phasi zed to the jury t hat th e t ruc k driv en by the sh ooter was a common model and color, question ed wheth er Bry ant had actual ly s een t he sh ooter’s face, an d sugges ted that Bryant may h ave be en infl uen ced by

7 threat s fr om C owart ’s family. 2 Counse l als o suggested in closing that th e poli ce h ad fai led to inv esti gate other p ossible pe rpetrators, such as anoth er romanti c partn er of Bryant or s omeon e inv olved in a prior invas ion of her hom e. 3 Couns el in clo sing di d no t ap pear to disput e that Hamilto n went to Ben ton’s house af ter th e shooti ng, arguing this wa s no t indic ative of Hamilto n seeking help a fte r havi ng com mitte d a c rime, as Ben ton was a mere acqu aintan ce, and Hami lton h ad park ed hi s tru ck th ere b efor e. 1. On app eal, Hamilt on ar gues tha t the trial court abused its dis cret ion in den yin g Ham ilton ’s requ est f or a mist rial af ter an emotion al outbu rst by Cowart ’s f amily whi le the State wa s playing video foot age that sh owed Cowart’s body. We con clude that Hamilt on has not sho wn an abus e of d iscretio n. Duri ng th e test im ony of th e offi cer who f irs t en countered Bryan t aft er th e s hootin g, th e State p layed the offi cer’s body - wor n 2 Bryant testified that she ha d been threatene d and “jumped” b y members of Cowart’ s family since t he shooting. 3 Bryant testified that a few months before the shoo tings, her home with Hamilton was brok en into and the two were held at gunpoint by masked intruders.

8 camera fo otag e. The tr anscr ipt indica tes t hat while the vide o was playi ng, someon e in the court room made an outburst. D ef e n se couns el requ ested a bench conferen ce, an d th e tran script not es two more outbu rsts, one whi le the prose cuto r was add ressin g the trial court an d an othe r whi le th e ju ry was escor ted ou t of th e c ourtro om; the t ranscr ipt also notes th at “th e fami ly” w as escor ted ou t at thi s time. Defe nse co unsel initiall y sa id, “ I don’ t know t hat it q uite r ises to the level of a mistrial [.]”Bu t after the pros ecuto r im plied that he had warn ed C owart ’s family abou t the c ontent s of the vi deo and warned abou t mak in g outbu rsts, defen se c ouns el mov ed f or a mistri al “j ust du e to t he l evel of w hat ju st tr anspired an d th e fa ct that they knew wh at was th ere and they knew wh at was c omin g.” The tr ial court de nied the mistrial and admoni sh ed membe rs of Cowart ’s fami ly w ho had return ed t o the court roo m. The trial co urt indi cated it w as goi ng to i nstru ct th e jury, but be fore the ju ry was brough t ba ck in to th e courtr oom, th e trial c ourt stat ed, “I kn ow that’s no t you r pr eferr ed w ay t o ha ndle i t,” and, “I kn ow th at’s your backup re ques t.” The court t hen charge d the jury as fol lows:

9 Ladies and gentl emen, bef ore w e broke we had [a] little inci dent i n th e courtro om. I k no w everyb ody n oti ced it. The fa mily of the victim had a n outburs t. I would instruc t you to di sreg ard th e outburs t or outcry that was i n cou rt, that was in th e c ourt room. Y our v erdic t, wh en you get t o it, sho uld b e a ve rdict based u pon th e evid ence ac cordi ng to law I g ive y ou. You shou ld no t show fav or or sym pathy to one s ide or the ot her. It ’ s your duty to co nside r all the facts obj ectively with out fav or, af fecti on or sym pathy t o either party, so I in struct you to di sregard an y inst ances like tha t. Hopefu ll y, that w on’t hap pen ag ain but y ou can under sta nd why it do es hap pen, but it should not a ffe ct your de cisi on i n th e end, w hen you get to decide th e cas e. After t he trial court i nstru cted the j ury, it ask ed, “Any additi onal instr uctio ns?” Def ense co unsel stat ed, “no, ” and d id not renew her reques t fo r a mi stri al. P reterm it ting wheth er thi s en umerati on o f err or was preserv ed, 4 H amilto n has not s hown an abus e of discre tion in the tria l court’ s ruling. “ A trial c ourt general ly h as bro ad disc retion in decidi ng w hether to gr ant a mistri al, and g reat d efe rence i s aff orded to a court ’ s det ermination th at a mi stri al was not nec essary. ” Tho ma s v. State, 31 1 Ga. 57 3, 576 (20 21). “ The measur es a trial 4 But s ee Jivens v. St ate, 317 Ga. 85 9, 866 (2023) (wher e defendant fails to renew motion for mistri al followin g trial court’s cura tive instr uction, he waives issue of deni al of mistrial f or appeal).

10 court t akes in res pons e to a court room outbu rst are wi thin the court ’ s discretio n unless a f air trial is not p oss ible witho ut a ne w tria l. ” Id. “ Gener ally, a tri al cou rt does not abuse its discretion when it takes promp t, thorough, and cu rati ve acti on.” Id. (quotati on marks omitted). “ When jur ies are giv en cur at ive inst ructio ns fo llowing such outbu rsts, t hey a re p resum ed t o fol low them in the a bsenc e of proof to th e cont rary.” Id. (clean ed up). Here, th e tri al court admonished family mem bers abou t the outburs t. T he trial c ourt instr ucte d the jury to disre gard the outburs t in detai led remark s. Altho ugh Ha milto n sugge sts t hat the curativ e i nstru ction was i nsu ffici ent be cause the S tate’s cas e was weak, th e Stat e’s cas e included a cl ear ey ewitness iden tifi cation of Hami lton as the sho oter by s omeone wh o k new h im w ell, corrob orated by other evidence. A nd Hami lton otherw ise ha s not even a ttemp ted t o argu e wi th an y speci fi city h ow the out burst of which he c o mp lains — the nature of w hich is not det ailed in t he record — affec ted th e ve rdic ts o r poi nted to any ev idence that th e jury d isre garded the instr uctio n. Th erefor e, he has n ot shown

11 reversi ble err or. See Thoma s, 311 Ga. at 576 –77 (no abus e of discr etion in den ial of mist rial a fter v icti m’s son scr eamed at the defen dant, “You killed my d add y,” dur ing tria l in the courtro om, even w here mu lt iple m embers of th e jury i ndi cated th e out burs t caused th em conce rn, wh ere cour t receiv ed reass urance from all jurors that th e ou tburst w ould not i mpair th eir a bility to be fai r and impar tia l and t old the jur y to disr egard the outbu rst an d that the man w ho mad e th e out burs t was exclu ded f rom the c ourth ouse); Thomps on v. State, 304 Ga. 146, 154 – 55 (2018) (tria l cour t did no t abus e its disc retion in d enying mo tion for mistria l after a wi tness under cr oss - exami nati on said repeatedl y, “Y ’ all done killed somebod y,” an d “Y ’ all go ing to hell,” where th e cou rt dire cted the jury t o disreg ard the outbu rst); Messe r v. State, 24 7 Ga. 31 6, 323 – 25 (198 1) (c oncludin g t hat t he t rial c ourt did not a buse it s d iscre tion b y refusi ng to decl are a mi stri al after the fat her of t he victim lunge d at the de fend ant an d scr eamed, “Y ou ’ ll pay,” “ You ’ re lia ble,” and “[Y] ou ’ re goi ng t o get it, ” wher e th e cour t gave a curativ e inst ruct ion and ask ed jurors wh ether the out burst woul d affect thei r verdi ct).

12 2. Next, H amilton argu es that th e trial cou rt a b used its discre tio n in denyi ng Ham ilton ’s requ est f or a mi strial after a detecti ve tes tified ab out Ham ilt on’s refus al to m ake a s tat ement t o law en forc ement wh en he w as arr ested. Test ifying a t tr ial about Hami lton turn ing himse lf in t o law enforc ement, a detecti ve vol untee red with out prompt ing that Hami lton “w as n ot wil ling to mak e a statem ent at that tim e.” The jury w as ex cused at th e requ est of t he pr osecu tor, w ho t old the cou rt, “O bviously that was not a planned respo nse. In f act, the d etec tive and I had talke d about this during the lunch b reak abo ut not mak ing any re feren ce. ” Hamilton ’s cou nsel made a moti on for a mi stri al, citing b ot h the S ixth Amend ment to the Un ited S tates C o nstitut ion and t he Georgia Cons titut ion and ar guing th at “[a] cura tive instr uctio n will no t fix this.” The trial co urt de nied the mot ion. The tria l court ga ve a c urativ e instr uctio n instr ucting the jury to disreg ard the d etectiv e’s s tatement as imp roper: Ladies and gentl emen, just before we broke the offi cer gave t estim ony about the d efend ant refu sed to give a sta tement when he fir st tur ned himse lf in. The S tate

13 alway s has an u naltera ble bu rden of pro of bey ond a reason able d oubt in these cases, an d the defen dant has an absol ute ri gh t to remai n si lent. S o it w as im prop er, the statem ent t hat w as mad e was n ot done in tenti onal ly, but it — but it was a stat ement th at came out i nadv erten tly to you. So I ’ m going to instruc t yo u to comple tely disreg ard that statement about him not gi ving a sta tement whe n he tur ned himse lf in. That ha s nothing — he has a n absolut e r ight to d o that. It should not be regard ed by you i n any man ner wh atsoev er. The cou rt th en a sked jurors to rais e the ir ha nds if the y co uld not follo w the instr uctio n; no o ne raised a hand. Aft er the curat ive ins truction was g iven, the def ense renew ed its m otion for mi stri al; the t rial cou rt did not respond, a nd examin ation of th e dete ctiv e resumed. W hether to gran t a m ist rial d ue to an im prope r comm ent on a defen dant’ s sil ence is a mat ter f or th e tri al cour t’s dis creti on that an app ellate co urt will not dis turb “unle ss t here is a sho wing that a mistr ial is e ssential t o the pr eserva tio n of the right to a fa ir trial.” Parke r v. S tate, 309 G a. 7 36, 7 38 (2020) (quo tati on mark s omi tted). T he detec tive’s remark may w el l hav e been an impe rmiss ible comm ent on Hamilt on’ s sile nce. B ut we need not de cide th at questi on, bec ause even if it was, the trial co urt acte d within its

14 discre tio n in denying the mo tio n for mist rial. T h e com ment w as non - respon siv e to the p rose cuto r’s q uesti on and m ade i n pass ing. Furth er, th e tri al court in struct ed th e jury to disr egard the rema rk as imp rop er. The jury is pres umed to ha ve followe d that ins truct ion. S ee id. at 73 9. A nd Hami lton has not of fered a ny pro of to rebu t that presumpti on. Hamilt on argues the we akness of the St ate’s case — as evi den ced, he says, by th e len gth of the ju ry ’s del iberat ions an d a note indicat ing tha t the jur y thought t hat law enfor cement did a poor job invest igating — is itse lf evi dence that the ju ry may n ot hav e follow ed th e trial court’s in struc tio ns. 5 But t his is mere specul ation as to what may h ave in fluen ced j urors who had initially v ote d to acquit and the refore ins uffici ent to show j ur ors d isreg arde d th e instr uctio ns. Cf. Bradley v. State, 234 Ga. 664, 668 (19 75) (rej ecti ng claim of error in denia l of mistr ial, where def endant ’s argume nt as 5 The transcrip t indicates that the j ury received th e case arou nd lunchtime on the third da y of trial and return ed its ve rdict mid morning th e following day. Duri ng deliberat ions, th e jury sent the co urt several n otes, first stating it was “de adlocked 50 50, ” th en indic ating it was at eight votes for guilty and four for not guilt y, then tha t it was “at a stale mate” at tha t vote despite being told to contin ue delibera ting. In one note, t he jury s tated, “The only thing we agree on is the cops di d a shoddy jo b.”

15 to how pros ecutor’s rem ark may h ave b een consi der ed by the jury i n disreg ard of curative instr uctio ns was “ specula tive” a nd “unlike ly”). And, as note d ab ove, th e Stat e’s case was n ot weak. Theref ore, this enum erati on o f er ror f ails. See Parker, 309 Ga. at 738 – 39 (trial court did no t abuse its discret ion in denying motio n for mistr ial ba sed o n a dete ctive ’s non responsi ve tes tim ony th at the defe ndant “did n’t spea k” and “didn’t say a nything” where t he trial cou rt instru cted jury t o disr egard the co mment, a nd t he def endant prov ided no eviden ce th at th e ju ry dis regar ded th e cou rt’s i nst ru ction). 3. Hami lton arg ues that th e trial court abu sed its di screti on in admit ting e vide nce of “ prior ‘ bad acts ’ and/or ‘ p rior d iffic ultie s ’” between him an d the victims. Hamilton ar gues tha t the evidenc e did not mee t the crite ria for a dmissibilit y unde r OCGA § 24 -4- 404(b) (“Rule 404(b)”) and did not qualif y as intr insic e videnc e. He als o argues that the evi dence sh ould hav e be en ex clud ed un der OCGA § 24 -4- 403 (“R ul e 403”). We concl ude that the trial cou rt did not a buse its dis cretio n in admitting a t leas t some of this eviden ce as intrinsic, and any er ror in the a dmiss ion of the res t of the evid ence w as

16 harml ess. The Sta te file d a pre - trial motion to admi t ev iden ce of pri or diff icultie s between Ham ilton and t he v ictims as intr insic e vide nce. The defense r esp onded that the e vide nce was not intr insic, amoun ted to m ere all ega tions su pported by not hing more than Bryan t’s w ord, an d was p rejudi ci al and wou ld l ead t o conf usion of the is sues. The Sta te ame nded its m otio n to includ e sp ecif ic incide nts, attac hing incide nt r eports as do cume ntation. At a pre trial hearin g on th e m atter, the Stat e argue d that the ev idenc e wou ld s how a patte rn of viol en ce and con troll ing behavi or exhibi ted by Hamilt on and that t his evid ence was admiss ible a s intrins ic eviden ce or in th e alt erna tive u nder R ule 4 04(b) for the pu rpos e of showing Ha milto n’s mot ive. The d efen se c ontin ued t o obj ect, refer encin g its pri or brie f and arguing that the re was a la ck of eviden ce that ce rtai n inci dents had oc curred. The tria l cou rt gran ted the S tate’ s motion, f inding t hat t he evide nce wa s intrinsic because it was necessa ry to c ompl ete th e s tory of the c rime and i nextri cabl y intertw in ed with the ev idenc e regardin g the ch arged offen ses, as

17 well as admissib le un der Ru le 404(b) to show mo tive. Th e cour t also found under Ru le 403 that the pro bative val ue of the evid ence was not su bstan tiall y outwei ghed by t he ri sk of u nfair p rejudice, conf usion of the issue s, or misleading t he jur y. Bryan t testi fied at tri al th at she and Ham ilton beg an dati ng while the y wer e still in high s choo l and that Br yant beca me viole nt toward her afte r h igh school. Sh e also des cribed h im taking her belong ing s on oc casi on; sh e sai d sh e wou ld “al ways get it back but just o n his time. ” Bry ant tes tified as fol lows about inciden ts descr ibed in t he a mende d notic e, a s well a s an inc ident involvin g damage to h er ca r about a m onth befor e the s hooti ng: • I n a Decem ber 2016 in cident that prompt ed Bryant to call polic e, while Bryant was p regna nt with he r sec ond c hild, Bryan t and Hamilton had argued; she recal led the argument may have be en “abo ut chea ting. ” Brya nt found Ha milton taking her bed apart so t hat he cou ld tak e it with hi m wh en he left their shar ed apartm ent. Ham ilt on “j acked [her] up by th e shirt and pinne d [her] on the b ed[.] ” Ha milto n swung a bedra il at Bryant, hit ting he r in the face. He too k a gun out of his pocket and starte d beati ng i t on a dr ess er. • I n Apri l 201 9, aft er Bry ant an d Ham ilt on argu ed and s he was “ignor ing him,” Bry ant wen t to a f riend ’s h ouse. Hami lton block ed Bry ant’s car from leavi ng the fri end’s hou se by park ing

18 behind it while the two we re arguing and t ried to force h er to get out of the ca r. Bry ant summon ed poli ce as a re su lt of thi s incide nt, a s well. 6 • In July 2019, Bryan t was tryi ng t o break u p wi th Hamilton and ignoring his calls and te xts. Hamilto n found Bryan t at her frie nd ’ s ho use and t ook th e keys from the inside of her vehicle, leadin g Bry ant to m ake a pol ice repor t. H amil ton l ater tol d Bryan t tha t he p ut her key s in a mai lbox. • Sh ortly aft er Br yant began seei ng Cowart, H ami lton s ent Bryan t a text m ess age sayi ng, “I fo und y ou,” al ong wi th a ph oto of her c ar at Cowart ’s hou se. W hen Bryan t tried to leav e, he r car was not w orki ng. S he suspect ed that Hamilt on, who wa s a mecha nic, had di sabled her car. • A t some p oin t after H ami lton fou nd out abou t Bry ant se eing Cowart, H amil ton and C owar t re ported to Bryan t th at they had run in to on e anot her at a con venience s tore, an d Bryant later s aw H amil ton fol lowi ng C owart. • A bout a mon th befor e the sh oot ing, whil e Bryan t was at Cowart ’s hou se, Hami lton slash ed Bryan t’s tires, “unhooke d some thing” relat ed to her tire s, and “ swit ched t he com puter ” in her car. Bryan t sugg ested in her te stimony t hat Hamilt on admitte d to her th at he di d thes e th ing s to her c ar th at day. 7 Brya nt did not report this inc ident t o polic e. • A bout a week before the shoo ting, w hen B ryant told Hami lton that sh e was not g oin g to st op seeing Cowa rt, H amil ton 6 The State also admitte d through Bryant’s testi mony a written statement that she had given to a prose cutor about this incident, s aying it was a “misunderstandin g” and Hamilt on was “not vi olent at all. ” 7 W hen asked if Ha milton said anythin g to her about this, she re plied, “Yes. That’s how I knew not to mo ve the car that da y. … He said that he unhooked my tires, or did somethi ng with the — I don’t know — he unhooked something.”

19 punch ed Bry ant in the fac e; poli ce respon ded, but B ryant t old them it was a m isunders tanding. Although H ami lton is not c lear about the basis on whic h each of t hese inc idents should have been exclu ded, w e neverth eless analyz e his cla ims. F or eas e of anal ysi s, we add ress the incide nts in two categ ories: those inci dents oc curring befor e Brya nt began seei ng Cowart and those occu rring aft er sh e began seei ng C owart. (a) Star ting with t he more recent incide nts, those taking place aft er Bry ant b egan seein g Co wart, Hamilto n a rgues g enerall y that the e vide nce is not neces sar y to t ell the s tory of th e charg ed crime s and t herefo re is no t intr insic a nd tha t Bryant s hould no t have been al lowe d to testify abou t th e inci dents becau se th ere w as not su fficien t ev id ence th at th e i ncid ents o ccurr ed. We d o not see any rev ersible e rror in the admission o f this e vidence. First, Hamil ton cannot clai m an y er ror in the adm issi on of Bryan t ’s test imo ny regar ding the incide nt in which H amilto n follow ed C owart after runn ing into hi m at a conv enien ce stor e. This incide nt appe ars to h ave been referenc ed in the Stat e’s am ended notic e, and the S tate asked Bryant about this incident outs ide of the

20 presen ce o f the ju ry in the middle of he r tria l test imony. But she did not te stif y about this incid ent be fore t he jury until t he defe nse asked her abou t it o n cross - exa mination. 8 Thus, Hamilt on ca nnot challe nge t he admis sion o f this par tic ular test imony. See Adkin s v. State, 301 G a. 153, 156 (2017) (“A d efendant general ly c ann ot comp lain on appe al about t he admissio n of evidenc e that he intro duced himself, eve n when he doe s so after the tria l court ha s overru led h is obj ection to th e admissi bil ity of th at ev idence. ”). An d, at any rate, thi s ev idence was pro perly admi tted a s intri nsic f or th e reason s dis cuss ed bel ow. Regardi ng Bry ant’s test imon y about Hami lton ’s various actions after sh e beg an s eein g Cow art, “ [e] vidence is intr insic w hen it per tains to th e chai n of events expl ain ing the contex t, mo tive, and set - up of the cr ime, and is admissible so long as it is linked in time and ci rcumstanc es with th e charg ed cri me, f orms an in teg ral an d 8 In his primary bri ef to this Court, H amilton suggest s that Bryan t testified about this incident to the ju ry on direct exam ination. But the porti on of her di rect testi mony he cites for this proposition do es not contain any reference of this inci dent.

21 natural part o f an accoun t of th e crim e, or i s nec essary to c omplet e the sto ry of th e crime for the j ury. ” Hughes v. St ate, 312 Ga. 149, 1 52 (2021) (clean ed up). Accord Uni ted State s v. Edoua rd, 485 F3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). “The re is no brig ht - line r ule re garding how close i n tim e evid ence m ust be to t he charg ed offens es, or r equiri ng eviden ce t o pe rta in d irectl y t o the victims of th e charg ed o ffen ses, for th at evid ence to be adm itted prop erly as intri nsic evi dence. ” Hughes, 312 Ga. at 152 (quotatio n marks omitted). “W e review a trial cou rt ’ s ruling admit ting e videnc e as int rinsic fo r an ab use of discretion.” Id. (quotati on mark s om itted). Here, the evid enc e of Hamilton’s act ions after she be gan seeing Cowart sh owed Ha milto n’s ang er over B ryant ’s rela tions hip with Cowart. The evi dence thus serv ed to explain why H amilto n sho t Bryan t and Cow art, helping to refut e the d efens e t heory tha t some other p erpetrato r had comm itte d the sho otin g. 9 The trial cou rt 9 Indeed, Ha milton attempted t o show that he was not actually u pset about Bryant’s relationship with Co wart. In particular, on cross -examinat ion of Bryant, Hamil ton elicite d Bryant’s testimony that despite their tumultuous and violent rela tionship and Bryan t’s knowledge tha t she had been se eing

22 ther efore d id not ab use its d iscretio n in co ncluding that the evid ence at issu e w as re ason ably n ecess ary to compl ete the s tory fo r the j ury and was ther efore intri nsic. Se e Hughes, 312 Ga. at 152 – 53 (eviden ce th at th e defendant h ad vandal ized a car o f the m urder victi m’s gr andm oth er was properl y admi tted as i ntri nsi c becau se it helped to show the te nsion be twee n the defen dan t an d memb ers of the vic tim’ s family a nd why t he de fe ndant was not permit ted in t he victi m’s h ome an d thus was followed out of th e hom e b y the victim befor e sho oting th e victi m); Clark v. State, 306 G a. 367, 373 – 75 (201 9) (ev idence t hat t he def endant hit and pushe d the murd er victim ’s wif e was p roper ly admit te d as intr insic, as it prov ided contex t fo r the charg ed of fens es by expl aini ng w hy th e fam ily did not wa nt the def endant in the home and why the victim follo wed the de fendan t ou tsid e of the home to make su re that h e left); Williams v. State, 302 Ga. 474, 486 – 87 (2017) (evi dence abou t the defen dant ’s Cowart for months, when Hamilton e ncountered Cowart a t the convenience store there were “no wor ds, … no a rgument, no fight, no, nobo dy shot anybody[.] ” The acts at issue helped t he State to dispute Ha milton’s suggestion that he was accepti ng of Bryant’s r elationship w ith Cowart.

23 HIV s tatus an d p rior s exual ass ault of n on - fatal stab bing vic tim ― the sister of the murder vic tim ― wa s intr insic b ecaus e it he lped expla in why the sister re fused the d efend ant’s a dvance s, the impetu s for h er d ecla rati on to t he def endant tha t th eir rel ation shi p was ov er an d the y wou ld n ever be alone again, a nd the inc rea sing fricti on and con flict betw een the two th at culm inated in the cri me s). See al so Un ited Sta tes v. W eeks, 716 F2d 83 0, 832 (11th Cir. 19 83) (eviden ce that federa l unde rco ver age nt wa s inv es tiga ting stolen cars w as int rinsi c to cha rged crim e of ass ault of a fede ral officer, as the inv estig ation in to stolen vehi cl es expl ained the agent’s presence with the defe ndant a nd his a ssociat es and their animos ity to ward him). 10 Hami lton arg ues that this e vidence was not est abli shed by suffic ient proof. But Bryan t testi fi ed to th ese i nci dent s at t rial. And 10 Our decision in Harris v. State, 32 1 Ga. 87 (2025), r elied on by Hamilton, is different in that it invol ved evidence of do mestic violence toward a previous partner, not the murd er victim, admitted u nder Rule 404(b), purportedly to show a bsence of accident or mistake and that the defen dant had a “motive to control intimate p artners w ith violence.” Se e id. at 95 – 101. Here, the evidence at issu e involved acti ons by the def endant tow ard the victims of the charged crimes themselv es and thus was neces sary to complete the stor y of the crimes.

24 “[t] he test imony of a single wit ness is general ly sufficie nt to est ablis h a fac t. ” OCGA § 2 4 - 14 - 8. To t he extent t hat Ham ilton argues th at B ryan t’s t estimon y about th ese e vents incl uded imprope r specul ation, particularly abo ut his invo lvem ent in disab ling he r c ar, assumi ng s uch a n arg umen t was even pres erv ed, “a la y witne ss may t estif y in the for m of op inions which a re ‘[r]a tional ly bas ed on the per cepti on of t he wi tness[. ]’” Sims v. Sta te, 321 Ga. 627, 634 (20 25) (quoti ng O CGA § 24 -7- 701(a) (1)). Particu larl y g iven Hami lton’s experienc e as a me chanic, and given Brya nt’s tes timony sugg est ing that Hamilto n admitt ed to one of the incide nts, w e can not s ay the trial cou rt a bused its discr etion to the extent tha t it permi tted Bry ant t o testi fy a bout her belief ab out Ha milto n ’s respo nsi bili ty for pro blems with her ca r. See Si ms, 32 1 Ga. at 634 – 35 (witne ss’ s testimo ny that he belie ved the de fenda nt was “taki ng up” f or anoth er w as pr operl y admi tted g iven that it was ration all y bas ed on h is obs ervation s). “Of cou rse, intrins ic evi den ce may be ‘ exclude d if its proba tive value is subs tantia lly out weighe d by t he da nger o f unfair pre judice,

25 conf usion of the issue s, or misleading t he jur y or by c onsid eratio ns of und ue delay, w aste of ti me, or ne edles s pres enta tion of cumu lati ve eviden ce. ’ ” Hughes, 312 Ga. a t 153 (quoting Rul e 403). “In revie wing issues under Rule 4 03, we look at the evid ence in a lig ht mo st favor able to its admis sion, m aximizing it s pro bative v alue a nd minimizi ng its undue prej udicial imp act. ” Id. (quota tio n marks omitted). As ex pl ained ab ove, the eviden ce at i ssue was pr obati ve in expla ining the contex t of the charg ed cri mes a nd Hamilton’s rela tionship with the victim s, which helpe d the St ate make it s case that Ham ilton, an d not an oth er perp etra tor, w as th e one wh o comm itted the s hoot ings. The evidenc e in quest ion might ha ve had some unfair p rejud icial e ffect, whether b y sugge sting to the jur y that Hami lton h ad a p ropen sity for vi ol ence or oth er abus ive behavi or or by invit ing the j ury to ret urn a guilty ver dict in this ca se to punis h him for th ose p re viou s un charged acts. But wh atev er su ch eff ect it might ha ve had was m itig ated by the fact tha t Bry ant was the State’ s prim ary wi tness both to t he sh ootin gs and to the prio r acts at is sue. Hamil ton ’s defen se w as th at Bry ant w as n ot cr edibl e, a nd

26 so if t he jury were skep tical tha t Hamilton co mmitt ed the s hootings, it li kely woul d be skep tical of B ryan t’s tes timon y as to the prio r acts, as we ll. Rule 403 was s atisfi ed h ere. See, e.g., Flow ers v. State, 30 7 Ga. 618, 6 22 – 23 (2 020) (trial co urt did not abus e its dis cretio n in dec iding that the probativ e value of eviden ce of a prior be ating of the victim by the d efen dant was not subst ant ially o utweighed by the dange r of unfair prejudice, as the “evide nce did not show mer ely that the app ellan t ha d eng aged in a p rior act of domes tic violen ce, bu t, ins tead, i t show ed the natu re of the re latio nship be twee n the app ellant and [the victim ] and his m otive in shoot ing her ”). (b) Regardi ng th e e viden ce of e arli er actions by B ryant toward Ham ilton before sh e sta rted seei ng C owart, H amil ton mak es similar ar guments, as well as arguing that these incide nts wer e too remote in time from th e charge d crimes to be ad miss ible. W e recogn ize th at thi s evid ence pres ents clos er questi ons o f admis sibilit y either a s in trin sic evi dence or un der Ru le 404 (b). B ut prete rmitti ng w heth er the trial court abuse d its d iscr etion i n admit ting t his evide nce, we easi ly conclu de tha t any abu se o f

27 discr etion was h arm less h ere. “It is fu ndam ent al that h arm a s well as error m u st be show n for r eversal.” Tarver v. St at e, 319 Ga. 165, 169 (202 4) (qu otation marks om itte d). See also OCGA § 24 -1- 103(a) (“Er ror sh all not b e predi cated u pon a ruli ng w hi ch admits or excludes ev iden ce un less a subs tanti al ri ght of th e p arty is a ffect ed [.] ”). “ The test for dete rmining no ncons titut iona l harmles s err or is whe ther it is hig hly proba ble th at th e error did not con tribu te t o th e v erdic t. ” Ki rby v. State, 304 Ga. 472, 478 (201 8) (quotation mar ks omi tted). “ In determi ni ng w hether the error w as h armles s, w e r evi ew the record de nov o an d wei gh the ev idence as we wou ld exp ect rea sonable jurors to h ave d one so.” Id. (quotat ion m arks omitte d). Here, to the extent tha t the eviden ce of acts by Hami lton prior to Bryan t’s i nvol vemen t wit h Cow art woul d prej udice the ju ry by showing t hat H amilton ha d pre vious ly acte d abusive ly by a cting viol ently toward Bryant, taking her belo ngings, a nd imp eding he r movemen ts, this eviden ce is cu mu lati ve of the ev idence tha t we alread y hav e determin e d was pro perly admitt ed as int rinsic — t he

28 eviden ce of Hamilto n’s act ions expre ssing his anger wit h Brya nt’s rela tionship with Cow art, whic h also invo lved Ha milton ac ting violent ly, inter fering wit h Brya nt’s use of her belongings (i.e., he r car), and imp edin g her movem ents. More o ver, as noted above, given tha t the evid ence at issue largel y consi sted of Bryant ’s own testimony, and H amilton’ s de fense turne d on Bryan t’s cre dibilit y, it is unlikely tha t t he jury’ s decisio ns as to guilt t urne d on Bryan t’s test imony abo ut these pr ior incide nts. Hamilt on ar gues that th e jur y’s note s to the cou rt duri ng deliber ations showed that the er ror wa s harm ful. But g iven tha t t he case tu rned on B ryan t’s cr edibi lity abou t th e iden tit y of the s hoot er, it is highly p roba ble that Bryant’ s addition al testim ony ab out the his tory of h er rel ationshi p with H amilt on did not aff ect th e verdict, espec ially giv en tha t it w as cumul ativ e of the intri nsic eviden ce of Hami lton’s reacti on to Bry ant’s rela tio nship with C owart. Thus, we conclu de that any erro r in adm issi on of the m ore tempor ally remot e incide nts was harmless. S ee K irby, 304 Ga. at 487 (any pre judice from e rron eous admissi on of def endant’s prior a rmed r obbery was

29 harml ess in tha t jury was awa re that he h ad committed othe r viol ent crim es and the evide nce of guilt wa s co mpelling). 4. Finally, Hamilt on a rgue s that cum ulative err ors in his tria l war rant reve rsal. We h ave ass umed onl y one err or, in t he admis sion o f a cer tain c ateg ory of e viden ce, and d ete rmin ed th at an y such error d id n ot prej udi ce H amil ton. T here are n o er rors t o cons ider to gether with this e vide ntiar y ruling. Thus, this c laim la cks merit. S ee Flood v. Sta te, 311 Ga. 800, 808 – 09 (2 021). Judgment a ffi rmed. A ll the Jus tices concur, except L aGrua and Land, JJ., who c oncur s pecia lly in Divi sion 3 (b).

30 L A G RUA, Justice, concurr ing spec ially. Because I believe that evid ence of th e pri or i nciden ts be tween Hamilt on and Brya nt — who w as also a vic tim in t his c ase — befor e Bryan t start ed se eing Cowart w as adm issi ble to sh ow motiv e un der OCGA § 24 -4- 404 (b) an d was also admis sible as pr ior diff icultie s and as int rinsic evidenc e, I specia lly concur in Divisio n 3 (b) of this case. See Lowe v. State, 31 4 Ga. 7 88, 793 (2 022) (concl udi ng that evidence showing t he a ppellant “vio lently lashe d out at [the victim] when he was ang ry wi th her” w ould h ave b een “rel ev ant as a p rior d iffic ulty to show moti ve” bec ause it “sh ow ed the tumu ltuous nature of their rela tionship ”); Payne v. State, 313 Ga. 21 8, 222 (20 22) (“Un der OCGA § 24 -4- 404(b), evid ence of a def endan t’s p rior a cts tow ards anothe r pers on may be a dmis sibl e into ev iden ce when th e defen dan t is accu sed of a cri min al act again st that person, where t he natu re of the rela tions hip be tw een t he defend ant a nd the vict im shed s light on the d efend ant’s moti ve in com mitti ng th e offense charged.” (quot ation marks omitted)). See al so Heade v. Sta te, 31 2 Ga. 19, 25 (202 1) (co ncluding t hat prior incide nts invo lving th e a ppella nt we re

31 admis sible as intr insic evi dence b ecaus e they w ere “ part of th e chain of even ts l eadi ng to the charg ed c rimes ” and were “ re asonabl y necess ary t o com plete th e story for the ju ry, ” insofar as they explai ned th e ap pell ant’s mo tivation and off ered c ontext to ot her witn esses’ acc ounts of wh at oc cur red b efor e the c ri mes a t issu e). In this c ase, t he evidence of pr ior diffic ultie s bet ween Ha milton and Bry ant t o ld the story o f a tumultuous r ela tionship r ife with violenc e a nd j ealousy that H amil ton exh ibi ted to wards B ryant, which ultima tely led to the sh ooting s of Bry ant and Cow art and resul ted in C ow art’s de ath. The f irst incide nt the m ajorit y prete rmits conce rn ed an a rgum ent in 2016 dur ing which Ha milto n pinned a pre gnant Bry ant to the bed a nd hit her in the face w ith a bedrai l. The next incid ent preter mitt ed by the majority conc erned an argu ment in 2 019 wher e Hamilto n follow ed Bryan t to a frien d’ s house, block ed her from leaving in he r car, and t ried to f orce fully remov e her f rom the car. The final incid ent also occurr ed in 20 19 when Hami lton h id B ryant’ s ca r keys aft er she at tempt ed t o brea k up with him.

32 There is nothing m ore intr insic t han the tumult uous a nd viol ent act s tha t occu rred durin g Ham ilton ’s r elat ionship with Bryan t to tell the story of his ina bilit y to le ave Bry a nt alone an d, when he ultimatel y dis cover ed sh e was seein g someon e else, to kill that p erson. Thi s is the ver y definitio n of what it mea ns to be intrins ic — so mething so inext ric ably inte rt wined tha t one piece cannot ex ist without the oth er. See Fe lto n v. Sta te, 920 SE2 d 667, 677 (2 025) (hol di ng t hat “[e] vidence pertaining to t he c hain of events explaini ng the c ontex t, motive, and set - up of the crime i s properl y adm itt ed ” as intrinsic e vidence “ if it is linke d in tim e and circum stan ces w ith t he ch arged crime, or forms a n in tegral and natural part o f an accoun t of th e crim e, or i s nec essary to c omplet e the st ory of the crim e for th e ju ry ”). For t hese rea sons, I specia lly conc ur in Divis ion 3 (b) but conc ur fully in t he rema inder of the op inion. I am a uthor ized to state that J ustice Land joins in t his spe cia l concur renc e.