McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856

Carlos Richard McClure was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly aiming a lever‑action BB rifle at two victims.
McClure testified he carried the BB gun during the encounter but denied aiming it; he requested jury instructions on justification (self‑defense and defense of habitation).
The trial court refused the justification instructions because McClure did not “admit” pointing the gun; the Court of Appeals affirmed that refusal.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a criminal defendant must "admit" facts to raise an affirmative defense and whether any admission must be for all purposes.
The Court held a defendant need not legally admit the charged facts to raise an affirmative defense; a defendant may accept facts for the limited purpose of asserting that defense and is entitled to a jury instruction whenever at least slight evidence supports the defense.
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for the Court of Appeals to decide whether slight evidence supported McClure’s requested instructions and whether any error was harmful; it overruled prior authority to the extent it required a blanket admission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must a defendant "admit" facts to raise an affirmative defense?	The State: a defendant must admit the act to obtain a justification instruction.	McClure: no formal admission required; defendant may assert affirmative defenses alternatively.	No; a defendant is not required to admit facts in the sense of conceding them generally.
If a defendant accepts facts for the defense, must that acceptance be binding for all purposes?	The State: any acceptance is an admission for all purposes.	McClure: any acceptance may be only for the limited purpose of raising that defense.	Acceptance may be limited to the purpose of asserting the affirmative defense.
When is a jury instruction on an affirmative defense required?	The State: deny instruction if defendant denies committing the act.	McClure: instruction is required if slight evidence supports the defense, from State or defendant.	If slight evidence supports the theory, the court must give the instruction regardless of defensive inconsistency.
Are prior cases requiring an admission still good law?	The State relied on older precedents requiring admission.	McClure: those precedents misstate the law and should not bar instructions.	Overruled to the extent they held a defendant must admit the crime for all purposes before obtaining an affirmative‑defense instruction.

Chandle v. State, 230 Ga. 574 (Ga. 1973) (early articulation of affirmative‑defense concept and burden‑of‑production principle)
Williams v. State, 297 Ga. 460 (Ga. 2015) (discusses phrasing that an affirmative defense "admits the doing of the act charged" and related clarifications)
Turner v. State, 262 Ga. 359 (Ga. 1992) (court must charge jury on two distinct affirmative defenses where evidence supports both)
Koritta v. State, 263 Ga. 703 (Ga. 1994) (mirror holding that accident and justification instructions may both be warranted)
Garner v. State, 303 Ga. 788 (Ga. 2018) (confirming that slight evidence suffices to authorize a jury charge)
Adams v. State, 288 Ga. 695 (Ga. 2011) (clarifying defendant’s burden of production for statutory affirmative defenses)
Shah v. State, 300 Ga. 14 (Ga. 2016) (addresses entitlement to alternative inconsistent defenses)
McClure v. State, 347 Ga. App. 68 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018) (decision below affirming trial court’s refusal to instruct)