Hills v. State

Eric Bernard Hills, then 17, was in a relationship with Destiney Lewis, who was still married to and living apart from Branden Lewis. One morning, while Hills and Destiney were together in her bedroom, Branden Lewis unexpectedly returned to retrieve a forgotten gun, pushed past Destiney, and walked into the bedroom. Hills, armed with a 9mm handgun, shot Lewis six times, killing him. A Chatham County jury convicted Hills of malice murder and related charges, and he was sentenced to life plus five years. On appeal, Hills argued the trial judge should have let the jury consider voluntary manslaughter, a lesser charge that applies when someone kills in the heat of sudden passion caused by serious provocation, pointing to the secretive nature of his relationship with Destiney and Lewis's past threats. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed, holding that Hills failed to object properly after the jury instructions were given, that the evidence showed at most fear and self-defense rather than passion or provocation, and that his case was nothing like prior cases involving discovered infidelity. The court affirmed the convictions.

The trial court did not commit plain error by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, because no evidence showed Hills acted from sudden, violent passion caused by serious provocation; the evidence instead showed he acted out of fear or in self-defense when he shot Lewis.

The decision reinforces that Georgia defendants must object to jury instructions after they are read, not just during the charge conference, or risk losing the right to challenge them on appeal except for plain error. It also clarifies limits on when a shooter's own secretive relationship can support a voluntary manslaughter defense.

Affirmed

1. Because Hills's trial attorney objected only at the charge conference and did not renew the objection after the judge actually read the instructions to the jury, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the missing voluntary manslaughter instruction only for plain error, a strict standard requiring an obvious mistake that likely changed the outcome.
2. To win under plain error review, Hills had to show the trial court's ruling was clearly wrong under existing law, which requires at least slight evidence that he acted from sudden, violent, and irresistible passion caused by serious provocation, judged by how a reasonable person would react rather than his own personal feelings.
3. The court compared this case to Allen v. State, where infidelity discovered by a betrayed partner could support a voluntary manslaughter charge, but found the situations different because here Hills was the one having the secret relationship and the one who did the shooting, not the wronged partner reacting to discovered infidelity.
4. The evidence showed Lewis had never personally threatened Hills, was unarmed when he entered the bedroom, said nothing to Hills, and likely did not even know Hills was there, undercutting any claim of provocation aimed specifically at Hills.
5. Hills himself told police he shot Lewis because Lewis 'raised his hand' at him, which the court found showed fear and an attempt at self-defense rather than anger or passion, so no evidence supported giving the voluntary manslaughter instruction.
6. Because there was no clear or obvious error in refusing the instruction, the court concluded the plain error standard was not met and rejected Hills's sole argument for reversing his convictions.

• murder conviction
• voluntary manslaughter
• jury instructions
• plain error review
• Chatham County