This appeal arises from charges filed against John Holcomb in connection with the shooting death of Bruce Knowles. The grand jury returned a four-count indictment against Holcomb, which charged him 1 with malice murder because he “did with malice aforethought cause the death of Bruce Knowles . . . by shooting him with a handgun”; 2 with felony murder because he “did while in the commission of a felony, to wit: aggravated assault, cause the death of Bruce Knowles . . . by shooting him with a handgun”; 3 with aggravated assault because he “did then and there unlawfully make an assault upon the person of Bruce Knowles with a firearm, a deadly weapon, by shooting him with said firearm”; and 4 with possession of “a Browning .25 caliber handgun during the commission of the crimes of Aggravated Assault and Murder of Bruce Knowles.” After a jury trial, Holcomb was convicted of involuntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense,1 aggravated assault,2 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.3 The jury acquitted him of malice murder and felony murder.4 On appeal, Holcomb contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial on the ground that the jury returned mutually exclusive verdicts of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter without specifying the methodology upon which the verdicts were based. In its brief on appeal, the State agrees with Holcomb and recommends reversing the verdict. We agree and reverse for the reasons that follow.
1. The evidence presented at trial shows that Holcomb, Knowles, and a third friend engaged in a day of drinking together. In the early evening, Holcomb decided to leave the establishment where the three were drinking and walked out to his motorcycle. Knowles and his friend attempted to prevent Holcomb from driving away due to his level of intoxication, but Holcomb became angry and retrieved his handgun from his motorcycle. Holcomb fired two shots in the air, and a third shot hit Knowles in the neck. Knowles died two days later from the injury. Testimony at trial differed as to whether Holcomb and the other men struggled for the gun, whether Holcomb pointed the gun at Knowles before it discharged, or whether the gun discharged as Holcomb fell after being pushed. This evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict whether it was based on the finding Knowles died as a result of an intentional act by Holcomb or as a result of Holcomb’s reckless conduct.5
