CourtListener 10846016

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: February 17, 2026

S25A1133. RIVERS v. THE STATE.

MCMILLIAN, Justice.

Karre Rivers appeals his convictions for malice murder and

related crimes arising from the shooting death of Oshane Scott.1 In

his sole enumeration of error, Rivers asserts that the trial court

erred in charging the jury on the use of excessive force in connection

1 The crimes occurred on January 17, 2021. In August 2022, a Gwinnett

County grand jury indicted Rivers for malice murder (Count 1), felony murder
(Count 2), aggravated assault (Count 3), possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony (Count 4), and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon (Count 5). At a trial held from February 26 to March 1, 2024, the jury
found Rivers guilty on Counts 1–4; Count 5 had been bifurcated prior to trial
and was later nolle prossed. The trial court sentenced Rivers to serve life in
prison without the possibility of parole for Count 1 and a consecutive five-year
term in prison for Count 4; the remaining counts were either vacated by
operation of law or merged for sentencing purposes. Rivers timely filed a
motion for new trial, which was amended by new counsel in February 2025.
Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the motion was decided on the briefs
without a hearing, and on April 29, 2025, the trial court denied the motion, as
amended. Rivers timely filed his notice of appeal, and his case was docketed to
this Court’s August 2025 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
with Rivers’s justification defense. Because the trial court did not

commit plain error in giving this charge, we affirm.

The evidence presented at trial showed that Scott lived with

his girlfriend Jazmine Wright and their two children at an

apartment complex in Lilburn. Scott used the apartment to grow

and sell marijuana and other controlled substances. Scott owned one

handgun, a Glock 9mm pistol that he was known to carry in a

shoulder bag. Beginning shortly after midnight on January 17, 2021,

Rivers’s cell phone sent Scott’s cell phone several text messages

about purchasing “wax” and a “seventh” of an unknown substance.

Rivers’s cell phone texted Scott’s cell phone at 1:51 p.m. that

afternoon to let him know that he was on the way to Scott’s

apartment. When Rivers arrived, Scott and Wright were leaving

their apartment, and Rivers walked up to their car. Scott was

carrying his shoulder bag with the gun.

Wright had met Rivers, through Scott, on two prior occasions,

but she did not know Rivers’s name. Wright stayed in the car while

the two men went upstairs to the apartment. Scott returned and

2
asked for the apartment keys, which Wright gave to him. Less than

two minutes later, Wright heard several gunshots, followed by a

pause and then two additional gunshots. She called 911, and as she

ran toward her apartment, she passed Rivers running down the

staircase with one hand in his pocket.

When Wright entered her apartment, she saw smoke and a

bullet hole in the wall, along with Rivers’s cell phone on the table.

In the kitchen, she saw blood on the cabinets and Scott’s feet sticking

out of the laundry room. Scott was gasping for air and unable to

speak. Wright pulled Scott into the kitchen and saw that one of his

hands was still in his bag. She also saw pieces of Scott’s gun in the

laundry room. As soon as law enforcement officers arrived at the

apartment complex, Wright picked up Rivers’s cell phone and ran

downstairs to give it to them, saying, “[T]his is the guy that shot

him.”

Wright told officers that she knew who shot Scott but that she

only knew the shooter by his Instagram account “Lil Kae 2x” because

he had repeatedly asked Scott to repost his rap songs on Instagram.

3
She also told officers that she was not aware of any problems

between the two men and that she had not seen any aggression or

animosity between them. Wright admitted to closing the door to the

laundry room, where Scott grew the marijuana. She also admitted

that there was between $15,000 and $20,000 in cash in the

apartment that Scott had saved in part from selling illegal drugs.

She denied altering or removing anything from the crime scene. A

resident of the apartment complex told officers that she had heard

multiple gunshots, a pause, and then several more gunshots.

Despite life-saving efforts, Scott died at the scene. Officers

located $17,000 in cash and various controlled substances, including

a “very small” marijuana grow supply, dried poppy flowers, a

“hodgepodge” of what appeared to be homemade pills, and a small

amount of THC wax. 2 The frame and magazine of Scott’s firearm

2 A narcotics investigator testified that live poppy flowers can be
processed to produce opium, a derivative of other narcotics, but that he did not
see any evidence that poppy flowers were being grown at Scott’s apartment.
The investigator also explained that THC wax is a type of concentrated THC
stripped directly from a marijuana plant but that he did not see evidence that
Scott was producing it in his apartment.
4
were located in Scott’s shoulder bag, along with the spring, which

was separated from the frame. The slide of the firearm was located

in the laundry room and had sustained damage consistent with

being shot while inside the bag. The firearm could not have been

fired in that condition. Officers also located bloodied cash with a

bullet hole through it in Scott’s bag.

Five bullets and thirteen shell casings were found at the scene.

Each of the casings were 9mm caliber of the same brand and had the

same striker mark and breech face characteristics; a firearms

examiner testified that this indicated they had all been fired from

the same firearm. There were six rounds in Scott’s pistol, which was

the full capacity for that firearm, and none of those rounds were the

same brand as the casings located at the scene. Scott’s pistol was

later reassembled, and officers performed test fires of the weapon.

The markings from the test fired rounds showed that Scott’s pistol

could not have generated any of the casings located at the scene.

Officers were able to determine that the phone left behind in

Scott’s apartment was associated with Rivers and that Rivers’s

5
driver’s license photo was consistent with the photos from the

Instagram account that Wright had provided. Rivers was arrested

approximately one month later after attempting to flee from a traffic

stop. After being informed of his rights under Miranda,3 Rivers

agreed to speak with investigators. Portions of that interview were

played for the jury at trial.

Rivers initially told investigators that he went to Scott’s

apartment to buy marijuana and found Scott dead in the apartment.

Later in the interview, Rivers said that he and Scott had lured a

person named “Beano” to the apartment so that they could rob or

kill Beano and that Beano shot Scott. Rivers then told investigators

that he “had words” with Scott and punched Scott in the face. Rivers

claimed that Scott pulled out a pistol, but he was able to take the

pistol from Scott and shoot him with it. He then claimed that he put

the pistol back in Scott’s hand after shooting him but later said he

threw the gun at Scott’s body. Eventually, Rivers admitted to having

a gun of his own and shooting Scott with that firearm, which he

3 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

6
disposed of after fleeing to St. Louis for several weeks. Each time

law enforcement presented Rivers with new evidence from the crime

scene, Rivers would pause and then change his story.

The medical examiner who performed Scott’s autopsy

determined that the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds to

the torso, bilateral upper extremities, and left thigh. Two of the exit

wounds were “shored,” which indicated there was something solid

behind Scott when the projectiles attempted to exit his body. The

medical examiner opined that those gunshot wounds were inflicted

when the linoleum kitchen floor was under Scott, that is, that Scott

was already at least in a seated position when he sustained those

two gunshots. The trajectory of several of the bullets also showed

that they were fired at a downward angle, suggesting that Scott was

on the ground when the shots were fired.

Rivers’s theory at trial was that the shooting was justified as

self-defense. Prior to trial, the State filed requests to charge,

including the pattern jury instruction on excessive force. See 2 Ga.

Jury Instructions – Criminal § 3.16.20 (“A defendant is not justified

7
in using excessive force while acting in (self-defense) (defense of

others). If you decide that the Defendant used more force than was

reasonably necessary to defend against the alleged victim’s threats

or use of force, then the Defendant’s actions would not be justified.”).

During the charge conference, defense counsel objected to this

instruction on the basis of relevance. The trial court ruled that the

instruction was appropriate given the evidence and Rivers’s

justification defense. 4

The trial court ultimately charged the jury:

A defendant is not justified in using excessive force while
acting in self-defense. If you decide that the defendant
used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend
against the alleged victim’s threat or use of force, then the
defendant’s actions would not be justified.

After giving the charge, the trial court asked whether counsel had

any exceptions to the charge, and defense counsel responded in the

negative.

Rivers argues that there was insufficient evidence to support

4 The trial court also fully charged the jury on self-defense and that the

State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Rivers’s
actions were not justified.
8
the charge on excessive force. “Because an objection voiced at the

charge conference does not preserve objections to the charge as

subsequently given, the failure to object to the charge as given

precludes appellate review unless such portion of the jury charge

constitutes plain error which affects substantial rights of the

parties.” White v. State, 291 Ga. 7, 8 (2012) (cleaned up). To establish

plain error, Rivers must show that the alleged instructional error

“was not affirmatively waived, was obvious beyond reasonable

dispute, likely affected the outcome of the proceedings, and seriously

affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.” DeMuro v. State, 317 Ga. 155, 163 (2023) (citation

omitted). If Rivers fails to satisfy one prong of this test, we need not

address the other prongs. See Baker v. State, 319 Ga. 456, 462

(2024). “Satisfying this high standard is difficult, as it should be.”

Id. (citation and punctuation omitted).

Rivers has not shown error that is obvious beyond reasonable

dispute. Rivers argues on appeal that the trial court erred in giving

the excessive force instruction because the evidence was not

9
“conclusive as to who was doing the shooting and why.” But even if

the evidence were inconclusive in this respect, there was evidence

that whoever fired the shots used excessive force and that Rivers

was the person who fired the shots. All that is required for the giving

of a jury instruction is slight evidence. See Bowman v. State, 317 Ga.

457, 463 (2023) (“Jury instructions must tell the jury the law of the

case fully and fairly and are authorized if supported by slight

evidence.” (citations and punctuation omitted)). Contrary to Rivers’s

claims, all 13 shell casings located at the scene were the same brand

and had the same striker mark and breech face characteristics,

indicating they had all been fired by the same firearm. Also,

eyewitness testimony placed Rivers in the apartment at the time

that Scott was shot multiple times, and testimony from the medical

examiner supported that Scott was shot twice after he was already

on the ground.

Thus, there was at least slight evidence to support the giving

of this charge, and the trial court did not err, much less commit plain

error, in giving the excessive force pattern jury charge. See Gold v.

10
State, 319 Ga. 149, 151–52 (2024) (given evidence presented, trial

court did not err in giving charge on excessive force as part of its

broader instructions on self-defense); Welbon v. State, 278 Ga. 312,

312–13 (2004) (explaining the excessive force charge, which comes

from the Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, is a correct statement

of law and was proper in light of the entire justification charge given

where defendant claimed he shot the deceased four to six times in

self-defense because the deceased was reaching for a gun).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.