Guajardo v. State, 290 Ga. 172

Guajardo was convicted of felony murder, three counts of aggravated assault, and three firearm-possession charges in connection with Derek King’s death.
Evidence showed a 2005–2006 drug operation dispute between Guajardo and Diondra Taylor, including an $18,000 debt and later confrontations.
On May 5–6, 2007, Guajardo and Taylor, Ward, and King were at a party; a physical altercation occurred between Guajardo and King over the drug seizure.
Guajardo testified he acted in self-defense, claiming Taylor pointed a gun and he fired back while leaving the scene.
Police recovered .40 caliber bullets and casings at the scene; no weapons were found inside the apartment.
The jury found Guajardo guilty of the charged offenses despite his self-defense claim, and the trial court merged King’s aggravated assault into felony murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inconsistent verdicts require reversal	Guajardo argues the malice verdict and other guilty verdicts are inconsistent.	State argues Milam allows inconsistent verdicts without automatic reversal; Turner creates a narrow exception if deliberations are transparent.	No reversal; not within Turner exception; deliberations not transparent.
Whether jury deliberation questions show transparent reasoning	Questions imply the jury’s rationale for acquittal and guilt were revealed.	Questions merely show jury sought to understand self-defense law; not transparent reasoning.	Not enough to constitute transparent reasoning under Turner.
Whether the court erred in instructing the jury in response to questions	Instructions were incorrect and prejudicial.	Instructional response was proper and not preserved for appeal.	Issue not preserved for review unless plain error; no plain error under Kelly/Olano.
Whether the trial court’s recharge on self-defense constitutes plain error	Recharge suggested inconsistent verdicts were permissible.	Recharge read with directive to consider self-defense on all counts; not obviously erroneous.	No plain error; instruction considered as a whole was not obviously erroneous and likely did not affect outcome.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency standard for evidence supports conviction)
Milam v. State, 255 Ga. 560 (1986) (inconsistent verdicts generally not reversible)
Turner v. State, 283 Ga. 17 (2008) (narrow exception for transparent jury deliberations)
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (2011) (adopts Olano plain-error four-prong test)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (four-pronged test for plain error)
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 273 Ga. 130 (2000) (consideration of jury instructions as a whole)
Dixon Wagner v. State, 311 Ga.App. 589 (2011) (summaries of Olano/plain error framework in Georgia appellate practice)