Reese v. State
314 Ga. 871
Ga.2022Background
- On Oct. 8, 2018 Stacy Devero was shot and later died; Jacarey Reese was indicted for malice murder, two counts of felony murder, and two counts of aggravated assault. After a first trial ended in a hung jury, a second trial in Dec. 2019 resulted in acquittal on malice murder but conviction for felony murder (based on aggravated assault) and life sentence.
- Reese’s defense at trial was twofold: (1) he did not fire the fatal shot (Devero may have shot himself), and (2) if he did fire, it was in self-defense/justification. Surveillance video, physical evidence, and prior recorded testimony were admitted; Reese had testified at the first trial (recording played at the second) but not at the second.
- During trial Reese requested a modified affirmative‑defense jury instruction modeled on McClure v. State, arguing the former pattern phrase “admits the doing of the act charged” is misleading; the trial court refused and read the unmodified pattern charge.
- In closing the prosecutor repeatedly argued the jury could not consider self‑defense unless Reese admitted he fired the gun — a position contrary to McClure. The jury sent a note during deliberations indicating it understood the charge to require such an admission.
- The trial court’s response to the jury note did not clarify the law and arguably reinforced the misimpression. The Georgia Supreme Court held the refusal to give the McClure‑style instruction, the prosecutor’s misstatements, and the court’s inadequate response were not harmless error and reversed the felony‑murder conviction; it also found the evidence legally sufficient to permit retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Reese's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing a McClure‑style modification of the pattern affirmative‑defense instruction | McClure shows the pattern wording “admits the doing of the act charged” is misleading; Reese need not literally admit the act to raise justification | No evidence Reese admitted firing; pattern instruction appropriate | Court erred — given the evidence, the modified instruction was authorized and the unmodified pattern was not properly adjusted to the evidence (McClure applied) |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument (that self‑defense requires an admission) was improper and objectionable | Prosecutor misstated the law post‑McClure; objections should have been sustained | Prosecutor relied on the court’s charge and lack of an admission | Prosecutor’s repeated misstatements directly contradicted McClure and compounded the instructional error |
| Whether the trial court’s response to the jury note cured the jury’s misunderstanding | The court’s answer left the jury believing an admission was a factual prerequisite to self‑defense and thus worsened the error | Court argued the note raised a factual question for the jury | Response was inadequate and may have made matters worse; it did not cure the instructional error |
| Whether the instructional and argument errors were harmless and whether evidence supports retrial | Errors affected the jury’s ability to consider justification; reversal required | Evidence was sufficient; any error was harmless or retrial permissible | Errors were not harmless — conviction reversed; but evidence was legally sufficient so State may retry Reese |
Key Cases Cited
- McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856 (disapproved requirement that defendant ‘admit’ charged act to get affirmative‑defense instruction; recommends revised instruction language)
- Morris v. State, 308 Ga. 520 (jury instructions must be adjusted to the evidence and be complete and correct)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for legal sufficiency of the evidence)
- Smith v. State, 299 Ga. 424 (harmless‑error test for nonconstitutional errors)
- Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238 (retrial permitted where conviction reversed for instructional error but evidence is sufficient)