Limiting Plain Error Review for Omitted Defense of Habitation Jury Instructions

Introduction

Craft v. State, decided May 28, 2025, by the Supreme Court of Georgia, addresses the scope of plain error review when a trial court omits a requested jury instruction on the defense of habitation statute (OCGA § 16-3-23). Ozell Craft, then seventeen, was convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault, and related charges following the shooting death of Marcus Sims. Craft’s sole appellate contention was that the trial court erred by failing to include an additional instruction on subsection (3) of OCGA § 16-3-23, which authorizes deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony in a “habitation,” defined to include motor vehicles. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, holding that even if omission of the instruction were error, Craft failed to show it likely affected the outcome of his trial, thereby failing the prejudice prong of plain error review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court summarized the evidence: Craft and his friend Rogers arranged to buy marijuana from Sims. A struggle over Rogers’s pistol ensued in Rogers’s parked car. Craft fired an initial shot, then pursued the wounded Sims and fired nine more shots, killing him. At trial, the court agreed to give instructions under OCGA § 16-3-23(1) (authorizing deadly force if an entry is violent and tumultuous and to prevent personal violence) and under subsection (3) (to prevent the commission of a felony), but inadvertently omitted the subsection (3) charge. Craft did not object at trial. On appeal, the Court applied plain error review, requiring proof of four elements: obvious error, affecting the outcome, and undermining fairness or integrity. The Court assumed, without deciding, that the omission was obvious error but concluded that Craft could not show that a subsection (3) instruction would have changed the verdict. Given overwhelming evidence that Sims was no longer attempting entry at the time of the final shots, Craft failed to demonstrate prejudice. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (1993) – Established that felony murder counts merge by operation of law under certain circumstances.
Miller v. State, 309 Ga. 549 (2020) – Clarified merger principles between aggravated assault and murder counts for sentencing.
Woodard v. State, 296 Ga. 803 (2015) – Described the plain error standard in jury instruction claims.
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (2011) – Emphasized the difficulty of satisfying all prongs of the plain error test.
Ruthenberg v. State, 317 Ga. 227 (2023) – Confirmed that failure to establish any one prong of plain error is fatal to the claim.
Fair v. State, 288 Ga. 244 (2010) – Interpreted the scope of OCGA § 16-3-23 and § 16-3-24.1, defining “habitation.”
Walker v. State, 301 Ga. 482 (2017) – Held that defense of habitation requires an actual or attempted entry at the time of the defensive act.
Swanson v. State, 306 Ga. 153 (2019) – Found no prejudice from failure to charge on defense of habitation when facts clearly negated the defense.
Newman v. State, 305 Ga. 792 (2019) – Similar holding on plain error and defense of habitation jury instructions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeded in two steps:

Assumption of Obvious Error: The Court assumed the trial court’s omission of subsection (3) was plain and obvious, since Craft had expressly requested that instruction.
Failure to Show Prejudice: Under OCGA § 17-8-58(b), Craft bore the burden to show the omission “likely affected the outcome”. The evidence demonstrated:
- Sims’s initial entry/grapple occurred inside Rogers’s vehicle.
- After the first shot, Sims fell outside the car, incapacitated but breathing.
- Craft then walked around and fired nine additional shots at a non-threatening, unarmed victim on the ground.
No reasonable jury could conclude that Sims at that point was committing or attempting a felony inside the car. Thus, subsection (3)—which requires force “necessary to prevent” a felony entry—was inapplicable. Without a colorable defense under that subsection, Craft could not demonstrate that a more complete instruction would have swayed the jury.

Impact on Future Cases

Craft v. State reinforces the high bar defendants face under plain error review, especially in jury instruction claims. Key takeaways:

Even if a trial court omits a requested instruction on a justification defense, appellate relief requires showing that the instruction could have reasonably altered the verdict.
Counsel must object contemporaneously to preserve instructional claims; absent objection, plain error review demands proof of prejudice.
The decision clarifies that defense of habitation—particularly deadly‐force subsections—hinges on contemporaneous unlawful entry or attempt.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain Error: A four-part test for unpreserved errors: (1) error exists; (2) obvious beyond dispute; (3) likely affected verdict; (4) undermines fairness or integrity.
Defense of Habitation (OCGA § 16-3-23): Justifies force to prevent unlawful entry or attack on a dwelling (including vehicles). Deadly force is only permitted if entry is violent (subsection 1), or to stop a felony entry (subsection 3).
Merger Doctrine: Prevents multiple convictions for the same underlying act or crime (e.g., felony murder vacates or merges into malice murder by operation of law).
Malice Murder vs. Felony Murder: Malice murder requires intent to kill; felony murder requires death during commission of certain felonies but merges out when malice murder is also charged.
“Likely Affected the Outcome”: Defendant must show a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result if properly instructed.

Conclusion

Craft v. State serves as an important precedent on the interaction of defense-of-habitation instructions and plain error review. The decision underscores that appellate courts will not reverse convictions based on omitted jury instructions unless the defendant can demonstrate a realistic chance of altering the verdict. By affirming Craft’s conviction despite the inadvertent omission of a subsection (3) defense-of-habitation charge, the Supreme Court of Georgia emphasizes both the narrow contours of justification defenses and the strict standards governing plain error relief.