TAYLOR v. THE STATE.
S23A0053
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 21, 2023
PINSON, Justice.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court‘s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court‘s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
Malik Taylor was the driver in a drive-by shooting in which one of his passengers, Jyleel Solomon, was killed by return fire. Taylor was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting.1 At trial, he claimed that he was shot at first and fired
his gun in self-defense. The jury rejected that claim, and on appeal,
We reject Taylor‘s argument because we reject his reading of the jury instruction. In context, it is clear the instruction correctly informed the jury about the defense of justification, including the principle that the defendant may not assert the defense if he used force during the commission of a felony. So we affirm Taylor‘s convictions and sentence.
1. On the evening of November 6, 2017, Taylor was driving around Milledgeville with Jemerius Goodman, Brandon Walls, and the victim, Solomon. The foursome was armed with handguns, and Solomon had an AK-47 rifle. At the same time, a number of people,
Gunfire erupted. The first shots were fired from Taylor‘s car, and Murray returned fire. Two people were hit. Lewis was hit in the lower buttock by a shot that came from the car. Solomon was shot in the head by Murray.
In the back seat of the car, Walls saw that Solomon had been shot. He alerted the others. The foursome dropped off Goodman so he could get rid of their guns, and then they drove toward the hospital. On the way, they passed a gas station and food market with a police car parked outside. They pulled in to seek help from the officer. Solomon was taken to the hospital, where he later died from his injury.
Taylor gave a statement to investigators, some of which was played at trial. According to Taylor, when he was driving past 126 Central Avenue, he heard shots coming from his left, although he
Taylor was charged with the felony murder of Solomon, predicated on the aggravated assaults of the group at 126 Central Avenue. At trial, he asserted self-defense. At the charge conference, Taylor‘s counsel requested the jury charge for self-defense and specified that the claim of self-defense “was to the aggravated assault charge.”
The trial court instructed the jury in relevant part as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen, the Defendant in this case, Malik Nashiem Taylor, has raised what we call an affirmative defense and so, in the next set of instructions, these instructions will apply only to Malik Nashiem Taylor.
An affirmative defense is a defense that admits the doing of the act charged2, but seeks to justify, excuse or mitigate it. Once an affirmative defense is raised, the burden is on the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person‘s conduct is justified is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against the other[‘s] [im]minent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm or injury to himself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified. A person is not justified in using force if that person initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant or 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 assault.
A forcible felony is any felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.
An aggravated assault is a felony defined as follows: A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when that person assaults another person with a deadly weapon. To constitute such assault, actual injury to the alleged victim need not be shown. It is only necessary that the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant attempted to cause a violent injury or that the person attempted to cause a violent injury to the alleged victim or intentionally committed an act that placed the alleged victim in reasonable fear of immediately receiving a violent injury.
2. Taylor contends that the trial court‘s instruction on self-defense was error because it misled the jury about who bore the burden of proof for that affirmative defense. Because Taylor did not object to the jury instruction at trial, we review it now only for plain error. See
Taylor‘s argument that this instruction was misleading focuses on the following sentence: “It is only necessary that the evidence
We think that Taylor‘s reading of this sentence is strained at best and not one the jury was likely to have considered. “Jury instructions are read and considered as a whole in determining whether there is error,” Campbell-Williams v. State, 309 Ga. 585, 588 (2) (a) (847 SE2d 583) (2020) (citation omitted), and here the context in which the instruction was given leaves its meaning clear.
To see why, let us walk through the instruction. The trial court first told the jury that Taylor was asserting the affirmative defense of justification. The court explained that the defense may apply if
Because this is easily the more natural and reasonable reading of the portion of the instruction to which Taylor objects, we reject Taylor‘s alternative reading, and thus his argument that the instruction shifted the burden to prove self-defense to him.4 So
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
in a way that could suggest that committing the felony for which a defendant claims justification could disqualify him from claiming justification for that very felony. Compare, e.g., State v. Brown, 314 Ga. 588 (878 SE2d 445) (2022) (defendant charged with murder for fatal shooting during card game; defendant asserted self-defense; State contended self-defense was unavailable because defendant was in process of committing different felony—robbing other players in the card game—when gunfire broke out).