Joshua Hames was indicted on alternative counts of malice murder, felony murder by misusing a firearm while hunting, and felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault. The grand jury also indicted him separately for the two underlying felonies. A jury acquitted him on the counts charging malice murder, felony murder during the commission of aggravated assault, and aggravated assault. However, it found him guilty of felony murder by the misuse of a firearm and on the separate count for that offense. Merging the underlying felony into the homicide, the trial court entered judgment of conviction on the jury’s guilty verdict as to felony murder, and imposed a life sentence. Following the denial of a motion for new trial, Hames brings this appeal.1 1. Hames and his brother Sam went hunting on their parents’ land. The two separated so as to hunt on different areas. Hames spotted something which, according to his subsequent statement and testimony, he mistook for a crouching animal, such as a bobcat or wildcat. In fact, what he saw was the victim, Sam. Hames aimed at the crouching figure through the scope on his rifle and fired, killing his brother. When construed most strongly in support of the jury’s verdict, the evidence is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Hames guilty of felony murder by the misuse of a gun while hunting. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979; Chapman v. State , 266 Ga. 356, 357 1 467 SE2d 497 1996.
2. During the execution of a search warrant, the police discovered handwriting on the wall of Hames’ bedroom. Over his objection, evidence of this writing was admitted as relevant to the existence of a motive to kill his brother. The admission of this evidence is enumerated as error, but the jury acquitted Hames of an intentional homicide. The handwriting obviously does not relate to whether he violated OCGA § 16-11-108 a when he aimed and fired his gun. Under that provision, the intent to kill is irrelevant, and guilt depends upon whether the defendant used a firearm in a manner to endanger the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm to or endanger the safety of another person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation . . . . “The introduction of improper evidence that goes to motive is harmless error where there is a conviction for an offense requiring no motive. Cit.” Stoudemire v. State , 261 Ga. 49, 50 3 401 SE2d 482 1991. Therefore, error, if any, in admission of the handwriting was harmless here.
