Hill v. State

Terrance Hill was convicted in Fulton County of felony murder and other crimes after a deadly shootout between two moving cars ended up killing a bystander, Gloria Starr Armour, who was driving nearby. At trial, Hill admitted driving one of the cars but denied firing a gun, and he argued he acted in self-defense after the other driver shot at him first. Hill, a convicted felon, asked the trial judge to specifically tell the jury that a felon can lawfully use a gun in self-defense, but the judge gave only the standard justification instruction without that extra language. On appeal, Hill argued this omission was a clear legal mistake and that his lawyer failed to make sure the judge ruled on the request. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed the missing instruction was probably an error, but ruled that no prior case clearly required it, so the mistake was not the kind of obvious error that requires a new trial. The court also found Hill's lawyer had, in fact, obtained a ruling on the request, so there was no ineffective assistance. The conviction was affirmed.

The court held that while the trial court likely erred by not expressly instructing the jury that a felon may lawfully use a firearm during an act of self-defense, no prior Georgia Supreme Court decision clearly required such an instruction, so the error was not 'clear and obvious' enough to satisfy the demanding plain-error standard.

The ruling puts Georgia trial judges on notice that they should give a specific instruction telling juries that felons may lawfully use firearms in self-defense, or risk having convictions overturned in future cases where this issue is properly raised and preserved.

Affirmed

1. Because Hill did not renew his objection after the jury was charged, the court reviewed the instructional claim only under the plain-error standard, which requires showing an unwaived, clear and obvious error that likely affected the trial's outcome and fairness.
2. The court examined its prior decisions in Johnson v. State and Floyd v. State, both of which recognize that a convicted felon is not automatically barred from claiming self-defense even though possessing a firearm is otherwise illegal for felons.
3. The court concluded that neither prior case actually required a trial judge to give the specific instruction Hill requested, so while omitting it was likely an ordinary legal error, it was not the kind of obvious error that plain-error review demands.
4. On the ineffective assistance claim, the court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, which requires showing both that the lawyer's performance was unreasonable and that it likely changed the outcome.
5. The court found the underlying premise of Hill's ineffective assistance claim false: the record showed his lawyer did in fact obtain an implicit ruling on the requested instruction, so there was no deficient performance to build a claim on.

• felony murder conviction
• self-defense instruction
• felon in possession of firearm
• ineffective assistance of counsel
• plain error review