Harris v. StateHarris v. State
Denarius Harris shot and killed Dallas Spruill. At trial, Harris claimed that he killed Spruill in self-defense, but the jury rejected that claim and found Harris guilty of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault. On appeal, Harris contends that a part of the trial court‘s jury instructions about self-defense — that a defendant cannоt claim self-defense if he was in the process of committing a felony when he used force against another person — was plainly erroneous because it effectively prevented the jury from ever finding that he shot Spruill in self-defense, since the shooting itself satisfied the elements of aggravated аssault, a felony. He also contends the trial court‘s instruction on self-defense placed undue emphasis on the use of deadly force, which could have led the jury to believe self-
1. Harris was convicted of felony murder and a gun charge in connection with the shooting death of Spruill.1 The evidence at trial showed the following.
Around midday on the day of the killing, Spruill was picked up at his house by Christian Boss. Spruill was planning to sell some
The fatal confrontation between Harris and Spruill unfolded when they arrived at that apartment complex. The jury heard three versions of these events: one from Boss, one from a witness who lived at the complex, Daikeisha Watts, and the third from Harris himself, who testified in his own defense. All three accounts agreed that Harris (or a man who could have been Harris) shot Spruill. But the accounts differed about the circumstances of the shooting.
Boss testified that when the group arrived at the apartment
About 30 seconds later, Harris said, “Give it up,” and Spruill said, “Watch out.” Then three quick shots were fired, and Spruill was hit. Boss ran away and called the police. After police arrived,
Thе testimony of the second witness, Watts, was mostly consistent with Boss‘s, but with a few differences — including that she did not identify any of the people in her narrative. Watts said that when the group‘s car arrived at the apartment complex, only two people were inside, not three. The driver got out and walked away as soon as they got there, leaving one person in the front passenger seat. About five minutes later, two different people came up to the car, both holding guns. The two newcomers held the man in the car at gunpoint and made him pop the trunk. The man in the car got out with his hands up and went back to the trunk. Then, “all of a sudden,” the two people with guns opened the back door of the car and pushed the third man into the back seat. Someone said, “Give it up, p***y,” and multiple shots were fired. The man in the car was hit and the two others ran off. Watts called 9-1-1. After the police arrived, the driver of the cаr, who had been absent the whole time, came back and identified himself to officers.
Blue got out of the car, showed Harris the TV in the trunk, аnd then went back to the front passenger door. But at this point Harris was no longer interested in buying a TV. He was afraid. He thought about “a way to get out of this situation safely.” He told Spruill he did not want to buy the TV and began backing away from the car.
As Harris started to step back, he saw Spruill‘s right arm — the one holding the gun — rise up аs Spruill appeared to turn toward him. Fearing for his life, Harris pulled out his own gun and shot at Spruill. When he was a safe distance away, Harris ran.
2. Harris contends that the trial cоurt committed plain error when it instructed the jury about self-defense. He points to the court‘s instruction that a defendant cannot claim that he used force in self-defense if he was committing a felony at the time. In Harris‘s view, that instruction was incomplete because it omitted the key point that committing a felony does not disqualify a defendant from claiming self-defense if that felony was itself justified.
(a) At the charge conference, the trial court, the State, and Harris‘s counsel consulted the pattern jury instructions to craft a jury instruction about self-defense. The parties agreed that the jury should be instructed that a person may not claim self-defense if he was attempting to commit or was committing a felony at the time. And they agreed that the jury should be told that the “arguable felony” that Harris may have been committing here was attempted armed robbery.
The court‘s jury instructions on self-defense were consistent
The court then told the jury that a person cannot claim self-defense if he is in the process of committing a felony, as follows:
A person is not justified in using force if that person is attempting to commit or is committing a felony. Criminal attempt to commit armed robbery as previously defined is a felony[.]
Counsel did not object to this instruction and confirmed later that it was what was agreed to at the charge conference.
(b) Because Harris did not object to the jury instructions below,
Assuming that Harris did not affirmatively waive his claim of plain error, the claim still fails because Harris has not shown that the trial court‘s jury instruction was wrong beyond reasonable dispute. A strong indication the instruction was not clearly wrong is that it was a сorrect statement of the law. The Code section dealing with the defense of justification provides that “A person is not justified in using force . . . if he . . . [i]s attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony.”
Nevertheless, Harris аrgues that the court‘s instruction was obviously wrong. In his view, the instruction could have caused the jury to believe, wrongly, that committing a felony would disqualify him from claiming self-defense even if the felony was the very one he claimed was justified. Harris relies for this argument on a footnote in our recent opinion in Taylor v. State, 316 Ga. 17, 21 (2) n.4 (885 SE2d 787) (2023), in which we suggested that thе trial court‘s instruction on the disqualifying-felony rule of
But the instruction in Taylor was different than the one here. In Taylor, the defendant was charged with felony murder predicated on aggravated assault for his role in a drive-by shooting, and he claimed self-defense. See Taylor, 316 Ga. at 18 (1). The trial court‘s charge to the jury included the following instruction: “A person is not justified in using force if that person . . . is attempting to commit, is committing or is fleeing after the commission of a felony. And in this case, the arguable felony has been alleged to be aggravated
By contrast, the instructiоns here cannot be understood to identify the shooting itself as the felony that could preclude Harris‘s justification defense. Immediately after telling the jury that Harris could not claim self-defense if he was committing a felony, the court
Harris points out that the trial court did not specify that the jury should not apply the disqualifying-felony rule of
In sum, the jury instructions correctly statеd the law and tracked the pattern jury instructions. The issue we identified in Taylor is not present in this case, and Harris has not cited any other authority supporting his contention that the court should have given a different instruction. His claim of plain error therefore fails. See Taylor v. State, 306 Ga. 277, 286 (3) (b) (830 SE2d 90) (2019) (trial court did not clearly err in failing to give morе detailed jury instruction when appellant cited no precedent requiring it).
3. Harris also contends that the trial court plainly erred by
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.