Johnson v. State

Frederick Johnson, a felony first-offender probationer, shot and killed Tyrell Jordan in 2016 and was charged with murder and illegally possessing a firearm as a felon. Johnson claimed he shot Jordan in self-defense. Because Georgia law generally bars felons from possessing guns, and generally bars anyone from claiming self-defense while committing a felony, the State argued Johnson could not raise a self-defense claim at all since he was not legally allowed to have the gun in the first place. A Bibb County trial judge agreed with the State, ruling as a matter of law that Johnson could not even argue self-defense, and denied his request for pretrial immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed. It held that a 2014 law, the Safe Carry Protection Act, changed the analysis: if Johnson reasonably believed he needed the gun to defend himself, his possession of it could itself be legally justified, meaning he was not actually committing a felony at the moment of the shooting. If that is true, the usual bar on self-defense claims by felons in possession of guns would not apply, and Johnson could pursue his self-defense claim. The case goes back to the trial court to sort out the facts.

Under the combined effect of OCGA §§ 16-3-21 and 16-11-138, a felon's or probationer's possession of a firearm can itself be justified when reasonably believed necessary for self-defense; if so, that possession is not a felony and does not trigger the statutory bar preventing a claim that the use of the firearm was justified self-defense.

The ruling clarifies that Georgia felons and probationers barred from having guns are not automatically stripped of a self-defense claim if they can show their possession of the weapon itself was justified by an immediate need for self-protection, affecting how prosecutors and defense lawyers handle similar cases statewide.

Reversed and remanded

1. Georgia law generally forbids felons and felony first-offender probationers from possessing firearms, and under OCGA § 16-3-21(b)(2) a person cannot claim self-defense if he was committing a felony at the time, so unlawfully possessing a gun while using it normally blocks a self-defense claim, as the court held in Woodard v. State.
2. But the court explained that if conduct that would otherwise be a felony is itself legally justified, it is not a crime at all, so it does not trigger that bar against claiming self-defense.
3. The court looked to the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, specifically OCGA § 16-11-138, which provides an 'absolute defense' of self-defense (as described in OCGA § 16-3-21) to violations of the group of gun-possession laws that includes the felon-in-possession statute.
4. Reading the two statutes together, the court concluded that a person's otherwise unlawful possession or carrying of a firearm can itself be justified when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself, not just the act of using force.
5. Applying that combined rule, the court reasoned that if Johnson reasonably believed he needed the gun to protect himself, his possession of it at that moment was not actually a felony, so it would not trigger the rule barring a self-defense claim, and the trial court was wrong to rule as a matter of law that Johnson could not raise self-defense at all.

• self-defense claim
• felon in possession of firearm
• murder charge
• Safe Carry Protection Act
• pretrial immunity