Lartery v. State

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

No. S26A1152

Maxwell Lartery

v.

The State

On Appeal from the Superior Court of Fulton County

No. 24SC002368

Decided: September 9, 2026

ELLINGTON, Justice.

A Fulton County jury found Maxwell Lartery guilty of mal- ice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of his girlfriend, Samantha Bozeman.1 Larte ry contends

1 The crimes were committed on February 5, 2024. On May 31, 2024, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Lartery for malice murder (Count 1), felony murder predicated on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Count 2), fel- ony murder predicated on criminal damage to property in the first degree (Count 3), aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Count 4), criminal dam- age to property in the first degree (Count 5), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 6). Following a trial that began on March 5, 2025, the jury found Lartery guilty on all counts. On March 10, 2025, the trial court sentenced Lartery to life with the possibility of parole for malice murder. The court also sentenced Lartery to ten years of probation for criminal damage to property in the first degree and to ten years in prison for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, both sentences to run consecutively to his life sentence. The felony murder counts were vacated by operation of law and the trial court merged the aggravated assault count into the malice mur- der conviction for sentencing purposes. Lartery filed a motion for new trial on

the trial court erred by refusing to give his requested charge on voluntary manslaughter and abused its discretion by denying his motion in limine to exclude expert testimony and exhibits con- cerning the cycle of violence in abusive relationships. As ex- plained below, we discern no reversible error and affirm the judg- ment of conviction.

The evidence presented at trial shows that, around noon on February 5, 2024, Lartery and Bozeman had an argument while inside Bozeman’s Fulton County home. A video recording from Bozeman’s Ring surveillance camera captured part of the argu- ment. It showed Lartery leaving through the front door carrying a bag of personal items as Bozeman splashed what appeared to be water toward him. After Bozeman closed the front door, Lartery set the bag down, drew a handgun from his fanny pack, and fired it four times at the front door. He then picked up his bag and yelled: “That’s what! You’re dead.” And then he walked away.

Nellie Parks, who lived across the street from Bozeman, testified that, as she was leaving the house to take the trash out, she heard gunfire. As she stepped outside, she looked toward Bo- zeman’s home and saw a heavy-set man backing away from Bo- zeman’s front door. He had dreadlocks, was wearing colorful clothes, and had a “bag strapped to him.” Later that same day, Parks went to check on Bozeman, and when she saw the damage to her front door and could not get Bozeman to answer her door- bell, she contacted the police. Parks told the responding officers about hearing gunshots and seeing a man at the front door.

March 14, 2025, and amended it on October 27, 2025. Lartery waived a hearing on the motion, relying on the briefs submitted. Thereafter, the trial court de- nied the motion on December 12, 2025. Lartery filed a notice of appeal on Jan- uary 6, 2026, and amended it on February 16, 2026. The case was docketed in this Court to the April 2026 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.

A responding officer testified that, after prying open the locked front door, he entered the home and followed a trail of what appeared to be blood to the kitchen, where he found Bozeman’s body lying face down on the floor. She had three visible wounds, one to her left hand and two to the hip area. According to the medical examiner, Bozeman died as the result of a perforating gunshot wound to the pelvis. The police officer further testified that the home’s glass storm door was shattered, and he observed four bullet holes that penetrated through the front door. Crime scene technicians collected four shell casings from the exterior of the home. One bullet was recovered from inside the home, near the front door; however no shell casings were found inside the home. The police also found a handgun on the kitchen counter near the sink, but it did not have any blood stains on or near it.

As the police secured Bozeman’s home, her daughter, Ha- wayanna Bozeman, arrived. When the police asked her if she knew a man fitting the description Parks had given them, she re- sponded that it was “Max[,] … her mother’s on-and-off-again boy- friend.” According to Hawayanna, Bozeman owned a gun but was not familiar with how to use it. She purchased it at the urging of her children as a safety precaution when she began driving for rideshare services.

A firearms expert who testified on behalf of the State con- cluded that the four 9mm shell casings recovered from the exte- rior of the home were fired from the same firearm; however, they were not fired from the handgun collected from Bozeman’s kitchen. The firearms expert also testified that when a typical 9mm handgun is fired, its shell casings will be ejected to the right and slightly to the rear of the weapon.

At the time of the shooting, Bozeman and Lartery were ro- mantically involved. According to Hawayanna, Lartery had been living with Bozeman for several years. She testified that two of Bozeman’s grandchildren moved in with Bozeman about a year prior to the shooting. Zipporah Ferguson, Bozeman’s best friend, testified that Lartery did not like the grandchildren living with them. Ferguson also testified that, on the day of the shooting, Bo- zeman visited her at work and confided that she had decided to end her relationship with Lartery because he would not pay his bills. Bozeman, who was “in tears,” said that she “can’t do it no more.” Jeffery Harrison, Hawayanna’s husband, testified that Lartery called him shortly after the shooting. According to Harri- son, Lartery insisted that he did not “stand over” Bozeman and shoot her. He claimed that Ferguson shot Bozeman and then al- tered the Ring video recordings to hide what she had done. Har- rison used his smart watch to record his conversation with Lartery. The conversation was played for the jury at trial.

Charles Sendling, a detective with the Atlanta Police De- partment, testified that he investigated Bozeman’s homicide. With help from Bozeman’s family, he was able to unlock Bo- zeman’s cell phone and access her Ring video recordings. The de- tective also submitted a search warrant to Ring.com for video re- cordings from the cameras on the house. The recordings that Ring.com produced pursuant to the search warrant were the same as those stored on Bozeman’s cellphone. Detective Sendling re- viewed the video recordings, which were then played for the jury. The first showed that Bozeman arrived at her home around 10:30 a.m. In a later video recording, an argument can be heard off screen, followed by the sound of a single gunshot. Lartery then said: “You think I’m bluffing,” and Bozeman can be heard scream- ing. In a subsequent video recording, Lartery can be heard saying that he is “going to shoot the place the f**k up,” and he “better not catch her out there.” Then he said: “This hoe almost shot me. She gone die.”

The last video-recorded interaction between Lartery and Bozeman showed Lartery coming outside to the front porch. A person inside the house threw water toward him, but it either missed him or Lartery failed to react to it splashing him. The door can then be heard closing. Lartery set down a bag that he had been carrying, unzipped a fanny pack strapped to his waist, re- moved a pistol from it, chambered a round in the pistol by sliding the magazine back, and fired four times at the door. After the shooting, he exclaimed: “That’s what! You’re dead.” The person seen shooting at Bozeman’s home in the surveillance video record- ing was identified at trial as Lartery by Hawayanna, her hus- band, and Ferguson. After the shooting, Bozeman could not be heard on any of the remaining video recordings. After reviewing all of the recordings from Bozeman’s Ring camera, Detective Sendling concluded that the surveillance video recordings had not captured anyone else shooting at or entering the house. He testi- fied that the only people who approached the house after the shooting were neighbors and a mail carrier. Moreover, he saw no indication that any video recordings had been deleted.

Officers also recovered a surveillance video recording from a neighboring home, and it was played for the jury at trial. Aryca Henderson testified that she lived across the street from Bo- zeman. A video recording from her security system captured the audio of an argument between Lartery and Bozeman. Then, mul- tiple gunshots can be heard. Shortly thereafter, Lartery can be seen walking in front of Henderson’s house, away from Bozeman’s home, at 12:37 p.m.

Based on his review of the video recordings, discussions with Bozeman’s family, and the evidence gathered from the crime scene, Detective Sendling obtained a warrant for Lartery’s arrest. Lartery evaded arrest for almost a month but was eventually taken into custody on March 13, 2024. After his arrest, the detec- tive interviewed him at police headquarters. The hour-long inter- view was played for the jury. The video recording of the interview showed that, after being advised of his rights and the charges against him, Lartery denied killing Bozeman and said that he was being framed by Ferguson and another of Bozeman’s daughters, Kadijah. He said that someone was taking his personal belong- ings and that he and Bozeman had argued about that on the day of the shooting. According to Lartery, he left the house at noon after his argument with Bozeman. He said that Bozeman “threw [his] stuff outside, blah, blah, blah,” and that he picked up his “stuff” and walked up the street to a lake. After describing what he did during that afternoon, he said “I didn’t even know she died, sir.” He claimed that he learned about the shooting when Kadijah posted about it on Facebook. Lartery contended that he was the “perfect person” for Ferguson and Kadijah to “point the finger at” and insisted: “Somebody is trying to frame Max for some stuff that they did.” He also said that Ferguson and Kadijah hated him be- cause he and Bozeman were “so cool.” Lartery explained that, the “whole year last year, we good,” and that “the drama started” when “[Kadijah’s] kids came back to her house.”

After he was shown the Ring video recording, Lartery ad- mitted that he fired his gun but he denied shooting at the door. He said that Bozeman threw hot water on him and that Bozeman almost shot him inside the house. During the rest of the inter- view, Lartery continued to deny that the shots he fired went through the door. He said, “I wouldn’t have pulled no gun on her, man,” insisting that he pulled it “at the door.” Lartery said that Bozeman and Ferguson fought on the day of the shooting, after Lartery had left, and that “that lady” — referring to Ferguson — deleted video footage that would incriminate her: “She came, shot that door, and deleted her video.” He insisted: “They are trying to frame me.” Lartery offered to turn his handgun over to police for forensic testing, but he never did.

Finally, the State presented the testimony of Rosa James, an expert in the field of domestic violence. Lartery filed a motion in limine to prevent her from testifying, arguing that James’s tes- timony was not relevant to the determination of his guilt or inno- cence as it did not make it more or less probable that Lartery com- mitted the charged crimes. Lartery further objected at trial on the ground that the probative value, if any, of James’s testimony and exhibits was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. The trial court overruled Lartery’s objections.

James testified about the “cycle of abuse” in and the “power dynamic” of an abusive relationship and how a person can find it difficult to leave the relationship. She testified that abuse does not have to be physical. It can be “blaming, denying, emotional abuse, intimidation.” Further, refusing to pay bills or objecting to family members moving into the household can be expressions of an abuser’s power and control. James testified that the most dangerous time for a person in an abusive relationship is when they decide to end the relationship. On cross-examination, James acknowledged that she had not interviewed Bozeman or Lartery. She explained that the purpose of her testimony was to enlighten the jury about “the science” of abusive relationships and domestic violence, not to diagnose it in any particular case.

1. Lartery contends that the trial court “erred when it de- nied [his] timely request to charge the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.” He argues that “slight evidence” existed estab- lishing that he was entitled to a charge on voluntary manslaugh- ter based on the following evidence adduced at trial: “(1) home camera videos depicting the shooting; (2) Bozeman’s threats to Lartery; (3) heated argument between Lartery and Bozeman that preceded the shooting; (4) evidence that Bozeman threw hot wa- ter on Lartery; (5) the presence of a loaded handgun in the kitchen where Bozeman’s body was found; (6) Lartery’s statement that Bozeman tried to shoot him; and (7) the unaccounted for shot.” For the following reasons, we disagree.

Here, the evidence showed that, prior to the shooting, Bo- zeman argued with Lartery, ended their relationship, and in- sisted that he leave her home. Although Lartery contends that Bozeman fired a gun at him during their argument, there was no forensic evidence presented at trial showing that her weapon had been fired recently. The surveillance recordings showed that Lartery left the home with a bag full of his personal belongings. Bozeman threw water at him, and then she closed and locked the front door. There is no evidence that, while she stood at the open front door, she said or did anything from which the jury might infer the requisite serious provocation. Rather, the evidence plainly showed that, after Bozeman went back inside and closed and locked her front door, ending her interaction with Lartery, he vented his anger by firing a gun repeatedly at Bozeman’s door. Based on this evidence and as explained below, Bozeman’s actions do not constitute the type of provocation sufficient to excite the passions of a reasonable person.

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when one kills another hu- man being under circumstances which would otherwise be mur- der, if the killer “acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person[.]” OCGA § 16-5- 2(a). The voluntary manslaughter statute establishes an objective standard; the provocation required to miti- gate malice is that which would arouse a heat of pas- sion in a reasonable person, and it is of no moment whether the provocation was sufficient to excite the deadly passion in the particular defendant. Thus, we must evaluate the alleged provocation evidence with respect to its effect on a reasonable person, putting aside any peculiar response Appellant may have had.

Johnson v. State, 297 Ga. 839, 843 (2015) (citations and punctua- tion omitted). Applying this objective standard, when the evi- dence in a particular case shows no more than circumstances that could have provoked that particular defendant, rather than cir- cumstances that might seriously provoke a reasonable person, we have consistently held as a matter of law that such evidence did not warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction. See id. at 844.

Turning to Lartery’s specific claims of provocation, the fact that Bozeman and Lartery argued does not itself amount to “seri- ous provocation” within the meaning of the voluntary manslaugh- ter statute. See Merritt v. State, 292 Ga. 327, 331 (2013) (“As a matter of law, angry statements alone ordinarily do not amount to ‘serious provocation’ within the meaning of OCGA § 16-5- 2(a).”). Further, evidence of Lartery’s troubled relationship with Bozeman, “even to the extent it involved physical confrontations, did not require a voluntary manslaughter charge.” Johnson, at 843. See also Francis v. State, 296 Ga. 190, 193 (2014) (“Though there was evidence of ongoing marital difficulties between Fran- cis and his wife and past acts of violence committed by his wife against Francis, there was no evidence of any specific provocation at or around the time of the murders such as would generate the ‘sudden … and irresistible passion’ necessary to support a convic- tion for voluntary manslaughter.” (punctuation omitted)); De- mons v. State, 277 Ga. 724, 725 (2004) (“Testimony regarding dis- cord in the relationship between [the defendant] and the victim does not constitute evidence of provocation or passion.”). Moreo- ver, “we have consistently held that a victim’s statement that she wants to end her relationship with the defendant is insufficient provocation to support a voluntary manslaughter charge.” Rigsby v. State, 306 Ga. 38, 43 (2019). See also Ware v. State, 303 Ga. 847, 850–51 (2018); Davis v. State, 290 Ga. 421, 421–24 (2012). Finally, even if Lartery feared that Bozeman would draw her handgun on him, that fear does not constitute serious provocation given the circumstances here. As we have explained, “neither fear that someone is going to pull a weapon nor fighting are the types of provocation that demand a voluntary manslaughter charge.” Wilkerson v. State, 317 Ga. 242, 247 (2023). See also Rountree v. State, 316 Ga. 691, 694 (2023) (same); Burke v. State, 302 Ga. 786, 790–91 (2018) (explaining that “acting out of fear of bodily harm is not the same as acting in the heat of passion, and only evidence of the latter supports a voluntary manslaughter conviction”); Jivens v. State, 317 Ga. 859, 862 (2023) (“[N]either mere words, nor fear for one’s safety, nor fighting are the types of provocation that demand a voluntary manslaughter charge.”); Annunziata v. State, 317 Ga. 175, 179 (2023) (“Even a physical confrontation be- tween two individuals does not necessarily provide the slight evi- dence necessary to require a voluntary manslaughter charge.”); Smith v. State, 296 Ga. 731, 737 (2015) (“[N]either fear that some- one is going to pull a gun nor fighting are the types of provocation which demand a voluntary manslaughter charge.”). Thus, this claim of error fails.

2. Lartery contends that the trial court should not have al- lowed the State’s expert on domestic violence, James, to testify.

At trial, Lartery objected that James’s testimony and illustrative exhibits were not relevant because she had no knowledge of this specific case, but the trial court overruled that objection. On ap- peal, Lartery makes the same argument about relevance, relying on OCGA § 24-4-401 and OCGA § 24-4-403. Assuming without deciding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting James’s testimony and the related exhibits, any error resulting from the admission of this evidence was harmless.

“A non-constitutional evidentiary error is harmless if it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict. When we assess whether an error was harmless, we review the record de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect rea- sonable jurors to have weighed it.” Moss v. State, 322 Ga. 757, 762 (2025) (citations omitted); see also Smith v. State, 313 Ga. 584, 587 (2022) (“A nonconstitutional error is harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” (quotation marks omitted)).

Applying that standard, it is highly probable that James’s testimony did not contribute to the verdict. Lartery was identified by three witnesses as the man seen firing four times into Bo- zeman’s front door on her Ring video recording. A neighbor also saw a man matching Lartery’s description walking away from Bo- zeman’s home immediately after the shooting. The video record- ing of him firing at the front door is clear and unobstructed. After seeing himself on the video recording, Lartery admitted to the de- tective that he had indeed fired his gun, though he denied firing at the front door. Bozeman died as a result of wounds from bullets fired through the door. That Lartery’s actions were malicious is supported by his own angry statements on the Ring video record- ings: “You think I’m bluffing,” “I’m going to shoot the place the f**k up,” “I better not catch you out there,” “This hoe almost shot me. She gone die.” And finally: “That’s what! You’re dead.”

Compared to that strong evidence of guilt, James’s testi- mony was highly unlikely to have contributed to the verdict. The record shows that, although James discussed “the science” of do- mestic violence and abusive relationships generally, she did not testify about Bozeman or Lartery specifically. She made it clear that she had not reviewed the evidence in the case and was offer- ing no opinion about the circumstances leading to the shooting. And although her testimony may have raised questions about whether the relationship was abusive, the jury had already heard evidence from other witnesses who testified that Lartery and Bo- zeman had a troubled relationship. Ferguson testified that Lartery was upset that Bozeman’s grandchildren were living with them. Ferguson also testified that Bozeman was “in tears” about her decision to kick Lartery out of the house and that she was in immediate financial distress because of his Lartery’s failure to pay his share of household expenses.

Under these circumstances, James’s testimony was not es- pecially prejudicial to Lartery, and given the strong evidence of his guilt, it was highly probable that any error in admitting the expert’s testimony did not contribute to the verdict. See, e.g., Moss, 322 Ga. at 762–63 (holding that any error in admitting ex- pert testimony on domestic violence was harmless given the strong evidence of guilt, including eyewitness testimony, incrimi- nating phone records, and the defendant’s admission); Mack v. State, 322 Ga. 390, 394–95 (2025) (testimony of expert witness was harmless when it was partly cumulative of other evidence and the overall evidence of guilt was strong); Brookins v. State, 315 Ga. 86, 104 (2022) (holding that, pretermitting whether the expert’s testimony was speculative and did not satisfy the re- quirements for admission, any error in admitting the testimony was harmless in that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict). Thus, this claim of error fails.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.