In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 2, 2015
S14A1702. JONES v. THE STATE.
NAHMIAS, Justice.
Appellant Jarquez Jones was convicted of two counts of malice murder for
the shooting deaths of Thaddeus Nelson and Randy Wilder; four counts of
aggravated assault for shooting toward Amanda Hill, Alexis Jenkins, Audra
McCluster, and Shametia McCluskey; and possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in not
charging the jury on voluntary manslaughter and that his sentence of two
consecutive terms of life imprisonment plus 85 years constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment. We affirm.1
1
The crimes occurred on September 14, 2010. On December 17, 2010, a Fulton County
grand jury indicted Appellant, Ladarrius Jones, and Samuel Jones for two counts of malice murder,
two counts of felony murder, six counts of aggravated assault, 11 counts of participation in criminal
street gang activity, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Appellant and his co-indictees were tried from September 7 to September 23, 2011. The jury found
Samuel Jones not guilty of all charges and Appellant and Ladarrius Jones guilty of all charges except
the 11 gang activity counts. The felony murder counts were vacated as a matter of law, and the
charges for aggravated assault of Nelson and Wilder merged into the two malice murder counts. The
trial court sentenced Appellant and Ladarrius Jones to serve two consecutive terms of life
imprisonment for the malice murder convictions, 20 consecutive years for each of the four remaining
aggravated assault convictions, and five consecutive years for the firearm offense. On September
30, 2011, Appellant filed a motion for new trial, which he amended with new counsel on December
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence at
trial showed the following. Appellant, his brother Samuel Jones, and his cousin
Ladarrius Jones were part of the “Bluff Gang,” a rap group in the Atlanta
neighborhood known as the Bluff. On September 13, 2010, Appellant and
Samuel’s mother posted insulting remarks on Samuel’s girlfriend’s Facebook
page. Samuel’s girlfriend and the four aggravated assault victims were members
of the “Young Crew,” or “YC,” another rap group in the Bluff. After several
more insults were exchanged via Facebook, members of the Bluff Gang and YC
took the online dispute to the streets. That night, Appellant and some YC
members including Alexis Jenkins had a confrontation, during which insults
were exchanged and YC members may have threatened Appellant with a gun
and a taser. In response, Appellant drew a gun and then shot at the YC members
as they ran away.
Around 3:00 p.m. the next day, September 14, Appellant and YC members
had another confrontation, during which Appellant put a gun to Jenkins’s head
20, 2012. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion on April 28, 2014. Appellant filed a
timely notice of appeal, and the case was docketed to this Court for the September 2014 term and
submitted for decision on the briefs. The record does not indicate whether Ladarrius Jones has
appealed.
2
and then fired a shot into the air. Jenkins threatened to get her cousins to fight
Appellant, but she did not display a weapon.
Around 10:00 p.m. that night, Appellant again confronted YC members
on the street. A witness who saw the encounter testified that Appellant looked
like he was going to fight the YC members, and they appeared to exchange
angry words. As the witness turned away, the YC members ran past her and she
heard gunshots. Several other witnesses, most of whom were YC members,
testified to seeing Appellant shoot at the fleeing group of YC members, which
included Jenkins, Hill, McCluster, and McCluskey.2 The testimony varied as to
who was with Appellant (most witnesses said he was with two or three other
men), whether his associates had guns, and how many shots were fired. Wilder
and Nelson, who were not involved in the dispute between the Bluff Gang and
YC, were standing in the area when the shooting began and were the only
people hit by the gunfire; they both died from their gunshot wounds. When the
2
Although the indictment lists the name of one of the aggravated assault victims as
Shametia McCluster, at trial she was identified without dispute as Shametia McCluskey. Appellant
does not argue that this variance undermines his conviction for that count of aggravated assault, and
this Court has held that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence based on an incorrectly named
victim will fail when “it is clear that the two names referred to the same individual,” Bostic v. State,
294 Ga. 845, 847 (2014), as is the case here.
3
first police officer arrived on the scene, Jenkins, who also testified at trial, told
him that Appellant and others had been shooting at them. Appellant and his co-
indictees were not located that night, but they were arrested six days later after
being pulled over for speeding. No witnesses saw any YC members with guns
on September 14, and shell casings were recovered only from the area where
Appellant had been seen.
At trial, Appellant’s defense theory was that he did not participate in the
shootings. Appellant did not testify, but he offered two alibi witnesses who
claimed that he was in a different area of the Bluff and took cover inside a
building with them when the shooting began.
Appellant does not dispute the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his convictions. Nevertheless, as is this Court’s practice in murder cases, we
have reviewed the record and conclude that, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial and summarized above
was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). See also Vega
v. State, 285 Ga. 32, 33 (673 SE2d 223) (2009) (“‘It was for the jury to
4
determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or
inconsistencies in the evidence.’” (citation omitted)).
2. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for
an instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder.
In fact, that instruction was requested only by one of Appellant’s co-defendants,
and when the court denied it, Appellant did not object, likely because any
contention that he committed voluntary manslaughter would have been entirely
inconsistent with his alibi defense. Accordingly, the trial court’s failure to give
a voluntary manslaughter instruction is reviewable on appeal only for plain
error. See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) (providing that the failure to object regarding
a jury instruction at trial precludes appellate review unless “the jury charge
constitutes plain error which affects substantial rights of the parties”); State v.
Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (718 SE2d 232) (2011) (“[A]ppellate review for plain
error is required whenever an appealing party properly asserts an error in jury
instructions.”).
The “plain error” test adopted by this Court in State v. Kelly . . .
authorizes reversal of a conviction if the instruction was erroneous,
the error was obvious, the instruction likely affected the outcome of
the proceedings, and the error seriously affected the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Satisfying all
5
four prongs of this standard is difficult, as it should be.
Lake v. State, 293 Ga. 56, 59 (743 SE2d 414) (2013) (citations and quotation
marks omitted). We see no plain error here.
A voluntary manslaughter charge is required only if there is “‘slight
evidence showing that the victim seriously provoked the defendant, causing the
defendant to kill the victim “solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and
irresistible passion,” OCGA § 16-5-2 (a).’” Merritt v. State, 292 Ga. 327, 331
(737 SE2d 673) (2013) (citation omitted). Appellant argues that evidence of
witnesses to the deadly encounter hearing numerous gunshots raised the
possibility of mutual gunfire. But there was no evidence that the YC members
had guns or shot at Appellant, and the only shell casings at the scene were found
where Appellant was seen firing his gun.
Some evidence did suggest that YC members may have threatened
Appellant with a gun and a taser during their first encounter on the night before
the killings. It was not plain error, however, for the trial court to determine, as
a matter of law, that the one-day interval between that possible provocation and
the killings was “sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard” by
Appellant, so that “the killing[s] shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be
6
punished as murder.” OCGA § 16-5-2 (a). See, e.g., Merritt, 292 Ga. at 331
(holding that no voluntary manslaughter instruction was required where “a few
hours passed between the [allegedly provoking] argument and the killing”);
Howard v. State, 288 Ga. 741, 746 (707 SE2d 80) (2011) (same, where “the
shooting occurred three to four hours after the initial confrontation,” so that
“objectively, [Appellant’s] response to the provoking incident was
unreasonable” (citation omitted)).
Appellant also points to evidence suggesting that he was arguing with the
YC members immediately before the shootings, but there is no evidence as to
what words were exchanged and in any event, “[a]s a matter of law, angry
statements alone ordinarily do not amount to ‘serious provocation’ within the
meaning of OCGA § 16-5-2 (a).” Merritt, 292 Ga. at 331. Moreover, “[t]his
Court has repeatedly held that neither fear that someone is going to pull a gun
nor fighting prior to a homicide are types of provocation demanding a voluntary
manslaughter charge.” Funes v. State, 289 Ga. 793, 795 (716 SE2d 183) (2011).
For these reasons, the trial court’s failure to charge on voluntary manslaughter
was not plain error. See Merritt, 292 Ga. at 331.
3. Appellant, who was 17 years old at the time of his crimes, also
7
asserts that his sentence – two consecutive terms of life imprisonment plus 85
years – constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.3 Appellant did not raise this
constitutional claim at or before his sentencing or in his motion for new trial,
however, and he therefore has waived appellate review of the issue. See
Brinkley v. State, 291 Ga. 195, 196 (728 SE2d 598) (2012).
In any event, Appellant’s Eighth Amendment claim is meritless. Georgia
law provides that “[a] person convicted of the offense of murder shall be
punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment
for life.” OCGA § 16-5-1 (e) (1). The Supreme Court of the United States has
in recent years limited the sentences that may be imposed on defendants who
murder before they turn 18, holding first that the Eighth Amendment forbids
imposing a death sentence on such juveniles, see Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S.
551 (125 SCt 1183, 161 LE2d 1) (2005), and then that the Constitution forbids
imposing even a mandatory sentence of life without parole, see Miller v.
Alabama, 567 U.S. __, 132 SCt 2455, 183 LEd2d 407 (2012). Since Miller, this
3
Appellant raises no distinct claim under the parallel provision of the Georgia Constitution.
See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XVII.
8
Court has held that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility
of parole pursuant to OCGA § 16-5-1 (e) (1) does not violate the federal or state
constitution because such a sentence is not mandatory but rather is imposed in
the discretion of the sentencing court after consideration of all the circumstances
in the given case, including the age of the offender and the qualities that
accompany youth. See Bun v. State, Case No. S14A1703, decided Feb. 16,
2015 (2015 WL 662302, at *1); Foster v. State, 294 Ga. 383, 387 (754 SE2d 33)
(2014).
In sentencing Appellant, the trial court followed the guidance offered in
Miller and explicitly considered Appellant’s relatively young age. See Miller,
132 SCt at 2469 (requiring courts to “take into account how children are
different and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them
to a lifetime in prison”). The court explained that it based its sentence on
balancing Appellant’s youth against the “vicious, mean, violent behavior and the
adult conduct that was engaged in,” which included the murder of not one but
two innocent bystanders. Appellant’s sentence was constitutional.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
9