Demuro v. State

Joshua DeMuro shot and killed Kevin Gilman during a street fight in Savannah that began as a road-rage dispute between other people. DeMuro claimed he shot Gilman because Gilman had choked him, taken his second handgun, and appeared to still be a threat. A Chatham County jury convicted DeMuro of murder, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing the evidence did not disprove his self-defense claim and that jury instructions were incomplete because a court reporter marked parts of the charge as inaudible, and that the trial court should have sent written instructions to the jury. The court held that witness testimony and video evidence let the jury reasonably conclude Gilman was unarmed or was retreating when shot, undercutting the self-defense claim. It also held DeMuro had not shown the jury actually failed to hear the instructions, and that Georgia law does not require written instructions be given to juries. The conviction was affirmed.

The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find DeMuro's shooting was not justified and that he acted with malice, and that DeMuro failed to show plain error in the jury instructions or in the trial court's decision not to send written instructions to the jury.

The ruling reaffirms that Georgia juries can reject a defendant's self-defense account based on other witnesses and video evidence, even when the defendant testifies he felt threatened. It also confirms trial courts are not required to send written jury instructions to deliberating jurors, even amid imperfect courtroom acoustics.

Affirmed

1. The court applied the standard from Jackson v. Virginia, which asks whether a rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and noted the jury could reject DeMuro's version of events in favor of other witnesses who said Gilman was unarmed.
2. Because DeMuro raised a self-defense claim under Georgia's justification statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21), the State had to disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court found evidence that Gilman was retreating or on the ground when shot supported the jury's rejection of that defense.
3. The court explained that malice, meaning a deliberate intent to kill or an abandoned and malignant heart shown by the circumstances, can be found instantly, and evidence that DeMuro shot Gilman as he turned away and continued firing while Gilman lay on the ground supported the jury's finding of malice.
4. On the jury instruction claim, the court applied the plain-error standard, which requires showing a clear or obvious error that likely affected the trial's outcome, and found DeMuro could not prove the jury actually failed to hear the parts of the charge the court reporter marked inaudible, especially since no juror asked for clarification.
5. On the written instructions issue, the court relied on prior precedent holding that Georgia law does not require trial courts to send written jury instructions to the jury room, so the trial court's choice not to do so was not reversible error.

• murder conviction
• self-defense claim
• jury instructions
• Savannah shooting
• plain error review