Reese v. State

Jacarey Reese was tried twice for shooting and killing Stacy Devero during what began as a marijuana deal. His first trial ended in a hung jury; at his second trial, in a Laurens County superior court, Reese argued both that he never fired the shot and that if he did, he acted in self-defense after Devero pulled his own gun. The trial judge used an older pattern instruction saying an affirmative defense 'admits the doing of the act charged,' even though the Supreme Court of Georgia had recently ruled in another case that this phrasing can mislead juries because a defendant does not have to admit anything to raise self-defense. The prosecutor then told the jury in closing argument that Reese could not claim self-defense because he never admitted shooting Devero, and the jury later sent a note showing it had accepted that incorrect legal claim. The judge's response to the note did not fix the confusion. The Supreme Court of Georgia found this error was not harmless, reversed the conviction, but ruled the evidence was strong enough that the State may retry Reese if it chooses.

The trial court erred by refusing to modify the pattern jury instruction on affirmative defenses to reflect that a defendant need not admit the charged act to raise self-defense, and this error, compounded by the prosecutor's misstatement of the law and an inadequate response to the jury's confused note, was not harmless.

The ruling reinforces that Georgia trial judges must use accurate self-defense instructions and that prosecutors cannot tell juries a defendant must confess to the shooting before self-defense can be considered, protecting defendants' right to a fair explanation of the law even when they deny firing the gun.

Judgment reversed

1. The court applies a de novo standard of review, meaning it independently decides without deference to the trial judge, when a defendant claims the trial court wrongly refused a proper jury instruction.
2. Under Georgia law, a defendant only needs 'slight evidence' supporting a self-defense theory to be entitled to a jury instruction on it, and here the surveillance video and Reese's own police interview provided that evidence.
3. The court explains that its earlier decision in McClure v. State clarified that a defendant does not have to admit committing the act charged in order to raise an affirmative defense like self-defense, and that the older pattern instruction's 'admits the doing of the act charged' phrase can mislead juries.
4. Because the trial judge used the unmodified pattern instruction despite this warning, the prosecutor was then able to argue in closing that Reese could not claim self-defense without admitting he fired the gun, directly contradicting McClure.
5. A jury note during deliberations proved the jury had absorbed this incorrect legal argument, and the judge's response to the note failed to correct the misunderstanding and may have deepened it.
6. Applying the standard for nonconstitutional harmless error, which asks whether it is highly probable the error did not affect the verdict, the court concludes it cannot say the instructional error was harmless, requiring reversal, though the evidence was sufficient to allow a retrial.

• felony murder conviction
• self-defense instruction
• jury instructions
• closing argument misstatement
• retrial