Rivers v. The State - Appeal of Malice Murder Conviction

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: February 1 7, 2026 S2 5 A1133. RIVERS v. THE STATE. M C M I LLIAN, Justice. Karre R ive rs ap peals hi s con vi ction s for mal ice mu rder and related crim es ar isi ng from the sh ootin g death of O shan e Scott. 1 In his sole enu mer ation o f err or, R ivers asser ts tha t the t rial cour t erred in ch argi ng the j ury on th e us e of excess ive for ce in connectio n 1 The crimes occurre d on January 17, 20 21. In August 202 2, a Gwinnett County grand jury i ndicted Rivers for malice murder (Count 1), felony m urder (Count 2), aggravat ed assault (Count 3), possession of a fi rearm during the commission of a felony (Count 4), and possessio n of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 5). At a trial held fr om February 26 to March 1, 2024, the jury found Rivers guilt y on Cou nts 1 – 4; Cou nt 5 had been bifurcated prior t o trial and was later nolle prossed. The trial c ourt sentence d Rivers to serve life in prison without the p ossibility of parole f or Count 1 and a consecutive f ive - year term in prison for Count 4; th e remaining counts were either vacated by operation of la w or merg ed for senten cing purposes. Rivers timely filed a motion for new trial, which was a mended by new counsel i n February 2025. Pursuant to agree ment of the pa rties, the motion w as decided on the br iefs without a hearing, and on A pril 29, 2025, the trial court den ied the motion, as amended. Rivers ti mely filed his n otice of appeal, and his case was docket ed to this Court’s August 2025 term an d submitted for a de cision on the briefs. NOTICE: T his opini on is subje ct to mo dificat ion res ultin g from motion s for re consi derat ion unde r Supre me C ourt Rule 27, the Court ’s recons ideratio n, and edit orial rev isions by t he Report er of Decisi ons. The ver sion of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geor gia Report s, desig nated as th e “Final Co py,” will replace a ny prior version on the Court’s websi te and docket. A bound volu me of the Georgi a Reports will con tain the final a nd officia l text of t he opinio n.

2 with Rive rs’s justifica tion defe nse. Becau se th e tri al court did not comm it plain er ror in giving this cha rge, we affirm. The ev iden ce pre sented at tri al s howed t hat S cott liv ed with his gir lfrie nd Jazmine Wright and t heir two c hildren at an apar tment complex in Lilbur n. Scott us ed the apa rtmen t to grow and sell mariju ana and oth er con tr olled su bstan ces. Sco tt own ed one handgun, a Glock 9 mm pistol tha t he was kno wn to carry in a shou lder bag. Beginni ng short ly after mid night on Januar y 17, 2021, Riv ers ’s cell p hone sent Sc ott ’s cell pho ne sever al text mess age s about p urch asin g “wax ” and a “sev enth ” of an unk nown s ubst ance. Riv ers ’s ce ll phone texted Sc ott ’s cell phone at 1:51 p.m. th at aftern oon to l et h im kn ow that h e was on the way to Scott ’s apartmen t. Whe n R ivers ar riv ed, Sco tt an d Wrig ht w ere leaving their ap artm ent, and R ivers w al ked up t o thei r ca r. Sco tt was carr ying his sho ulder ba g with the gun. Wrigh t had m et R ivers, thr ough Scott, on tw o p rio r occas ions, but sh e did n ot kn ow Ri vers’s n am e. Wright stay ed in the ca r while the tw o men we nt u pstair s to the a partm ent. Sco tt re turned an d

3 asked for the ap artmen t key s, w hi ch Wrig ht g ave to hi m. L ess than two mi nutes lat er, Wrigh t he ard several gun shots, f ollow ed by a pause and the n two add itiona l gunshots. She calle d 911, and as she ran tow ard h er apartm ent, she passe d Ri vers run ni ng down the sta ircase wit h one hand in his pocket. When Wri gh t enter ed he r apa rtm ent, sh e saw sm oke and a bullet hole in the wall, along w ith Ri vers’s cel l pho ne on th e table. In the kit chen, she saw blood on th e cabin ets and Scott ’s feet sticki ng out of the lau ndry room. S cott w as g aspin g fo r air an d un able t o spea k. Wright p ulled Sc ott into t he kitche n and saw tha t one of his hands w as still in his bag. She also saw piece s of Scott ’s gun in the laun dry ro om. As so on as law en for cemen t offi cer s arri ved a t t he apartmen t c ompl ex, Wright pic ked up Rivers’ s c ell phone an d ran downs tairs to give it to t hem, sa ying, “[T]his is the guy that s hot him.” Wright told off icers that she knew who sho t Scott but t hat she only knew the sho oter by hi s Inst ag ram ac coun t “L il K ae 2x” becau se he had r epeat edl y ask ed Sc ott t o repos t hi s rap son gs on I nstag ram.

4 She als o tol d off icers th at sh e was not awa re of any p roblems between the tw o men and th at she h ad not se en a ny ag gressi on or animos ity bet ween them. Wright admitted to closing the d oor to the laun dry r oom, w h ere S cott g rew th e mari juan a. Sh e al so adm itted that th ere w as be tween $15, 000 an d $20, 000 in cash i n the apartmen t th at Sco tt had save d in part fr om sel lin g ill egal drugs. She d enied alteri n g or rem ovi ng a ny thin g from th e cri me s cene. A residen t of the apar tment compl ex tol d offi cers th at she h ad h ear d multiple gunshot s, a pause, and t hen severa l more gunshot s. Desp ite life - saving effo rts, S cott died at the sce ne. Off icers located $17, 000 i n cash and v ariou s c ontr olled su bstan ces, i nclu din g a “very small ” m ariju ana gr ow suppl y, dri ed p oppy fl owers, a “hodgep odge ” of wh at appea red t o be h omem ade pi lls, and a sm all amount of THC wax. 2 The frame and magaz ine of Scott ’s fire arm 2 A narcotics investigator te stified th at live poppy flow ers can be processed to produce opium, a deriva tive of other narcotics, but that he did not see any evidence th at poppy flowers we re being grown at Scott’s apa rtment. The investigator als o explained that THC wax is a type of c oncentrated THC stripped directly from a marijuan a plant but that he did not see evidence that Scott was producing it in his apart ment.

5 were l ocat ed in S cott’s shou lde r b ag, al ong w ith the s pri ng, w hich was sep arat ed fr om th e fram e. The s lid e of the fire arm was loca ted in th e lau ndry r oom and had su stain ed damag e consi stent wi th being s hot while inside t he ba g. Th e firea rm coul d n ot have b een fire d in that condit ion. Off icers als o located bloodi ed c ash w ith a bull et hol e throu g h it i n Scot t’s ba g. Five bullet s an d th irteen shell cas in gs were found at the s cen e. Each of the casin gs were 9m m cal iber of the same br and an d had the same s trike r m ark an d bre ech f ace ch arac teri stics; a fir earm s exami ner tes tifie d that this indi cated th ey h ad all been fi red from the same fire arm. There were six rounds in Scot t’s pisto l, which wa s the ful l cap acity for that fire arm, and none of thos e rou nds w ere the same bran d as the cas ing s loca ted at th e scen e. Scot t’s pis tol w as later reas sembl ed, an d o ffic ers p erfo rmed te st fires of t he weapon. The m arkin gs fro m the tes t fi red r ounds showed that Scot t’s pist ol could n ot h ave g en erated any o f th e casi ngs l ocate d at th e sc ene. Office rs w ere abl e to d etermi ne that the phon e le ft beh ind i n Scott’ s apa rtm ent was as soci ated with Ri vers an d th at R ive rs’s

6 driver ’s li cen se ph oto w as c onsi stent w ith the photos from th e Instag ram ac cou nt th at Wrig ht h ad prov ided. Riv ers was arres ted approx imat ely on e month late r afte r attem ptin g to fl ee from a traf fic stop. A fter being info rmed of his r ights under Mir anda, 3 Rivers agreed to s peak w ith i nves tigator s. P ortion s of tha t in terview wer e played for th e j ury at tri al. River s initially told investig ators that he w en t to S cott ’s apartmen t to buy mariju ana an d fo und Scott de ad in the ap artmen t. Later i n th e int ervi ew, Ri vers sai d that he and Sc ott h ad lure d a person name d “B eano” to the ap artmen t so tha t t hey c oul d rob or kill Bean o and th at Beano sh ot S cott. Rivers then told invest igators that he “had wo rds” wit h Scott and punche d Sco tt in the f ace. Ri ve r s claim ed th at S cott pul led out a p is tol, but h e w as able t o tak e the pisto l from Scott and shoot him with it. He t he n c laimed tha t he put the pi stol ba ck in Scott’s h and a fte r shooti ng h im but later s aid he threw the g un at Sco tt’s body. Ev entually, Riv ers a dmitte d to having a gun of his own a nd shoo ting Sco tt with t hat firea rm, whic h he 3 See Miranda v. Ari zona, 384 US 436 (1 966).

7 dispo sed of af ter fleeing t o St. Louis for several w eeks. Each time law en forc ement pres ented Riv ers wi th n ew evi denc e from th e c rime scene, Riv ers w oul d paus e and then chan ge hi s st ory. The m edical ex amin er who perf ormed Scot t’s autop sy determi ned th at t he cau se of d eath was mu lti ple gu nshot w oun ds to the to rso, bi lat eral u pper ex tremi ti es, and left t hig h. Tw o of the exit wounds were “sho red,” whic h indicate d there was some thing so lid behin d Scott when the pr ojecti les attem pted t o exit his bod y. T he medic al examine r op ined that those g unshot wo unds were inflict ed when the linoleum k itchen f loor was under Scott, that is, t hat Sc ott was alre ady at l east i n a sea ted p ositi on wh en he su stain ed t h o se two guns hots. The traje ctory of sever al o f th e bull ets also showe d that th ey wer e fired at a dow nward angl e, su ggesti ng th at Scott was on the ground whe n the shot s were fir ed. Riv ers’s th eory at trial w as tha t th e shooti ng w as ju stif ied as self - def ense. Pri or to t rial, the State fi led req uests t o cha rge, includin g the p attern jury instruction o n exces sive force. See 2 Ga. Jury I nstruct ions – Cri min al § 3.16.2 0 (“A def endan t i s no t justif ied

8 in using e xces sive force while acting in (self - defense) (defen se of others). If y ou d eci de tha t the D efen dant u sed m ore fo rce th an w as reason ably nec essary to defen d ag ain st the alleg ed victi m’s th rea ts or use of f orce, then the D efen dant ’ s actio ns would no t be jus tified. ”). Duri ng th e char ge conf eren ce, d efens e cou nsel objec ted to thi s ins truction on th e basi s of relev an ce. T he tri al cour t rul ed th at the instr uction wa s approp riate give n the eviden ce and Rivers’s justif icat ion defe nse. 4 The tri al court ulti mately ch arged the j ury: A defe ndant is not justifie d in using ex cessive force while act ing in self - defen se. If you deci de that th e defendan t used mo re forc e than was re asonabl y nec essary to defend agains t the alleged victim ’ s thre at or use of forc e, then the defe ndant’s ac tions wo uld not be justified. After gi ving the charg e, the trial court asked wheth er counsel ha d any ex cepti ons to the ch arge, an d defen se cou nsel respond ed in the negati ve. Riv ers argu es that t here w as insu fficient evi dence t o support 4 The trial court also fully charged the jury on self - defense and that the State had the burd en of proving bey ond a reasonabl e doubt that Rivers ’s actions were not jus tified.

9 the ch arge on ex cessive force. “B ecause an obj ection v oiced at th e charge conferen ce does not p rese rve objec tions to t he ch arge as subsequ ently gi ven, the fai lure t o object to th e charge as giv en precl udes ap pellate revi ew unles s such portion of the jury charg e cons titutes plain error whic h affects sub stantia l rights of t he parties.” White v. State, 29 1 Ga. 7, 8 (2012) (cle aned u p). To establish plain error, Ri vers must show th at the al leged i nstruc tional err or “was n ot af firm atively wai ved, w as obvious bey ond reason able dispu te, likely affected the outc ome of the p roceedin gs, and seri ously affe cted the fairne ss, int egrity, or pub lic reputat ion of judic ial proceeding s.” DeMuro v. State, 3 17 Ga. 155, 163 (20 23) (cit ation omitted). If Rivers fa ils to sat isfy one p rong of this test, we need not address the ot he r prongs. Se e Baker v. State, 319 Ga. 456, 46 2 (202 4). “Sa tisfying this high sta ndar d is diffic ult, as it should be.” Id. (c itation a nd punctua tion o mitted). Riv ers has not sh own error t hat is obvious beyond reasonabl e disput e. Riv ers argues on appeal that the trial co urt erred in giv ing th e exce ssive forc e instru ction because th e evi dence was n ot

10 “ concl usive as to who was doing t he shoo ting and why. ” But even if the evi dence w ere inconclu sive in thi s respect, th ere was evi dence that wh oever fir ed the sho ts use d excessiv e force a nd tha t Rivers was th e pers on who fired the shots. A ll that is re quired for the giving of a jury ins truction is slight evidenc e. See Bowm an v. State, 31 7 Ga. 457, 4 63 (2 023) (“Jury instructi ons must tell th e jury the law of th e case fully and fa irly and are author ized if supporte d by slight evide nce.” (c itations a nd punctua ti on omi tted)). Con trary to Rivers ’s claim s, all 13 shell casin gs located at th e scene we re the same br and and had the sa me st riker mark an d br eech f ace cha racteristi cs, indi cating they had all been fired by the s ame fir earm. Al so, eyewi tness t estimon y placed Ri vers in the apartmen t at the time that S cott was sh ot multipl e times, an d testimon y from the m edical exami ner sup por ted tha t Scott wa s shot twice after h e was alre ady on the ground. Thus, the re wa s at leas t slight e videnc e to supp ort the giving of t his char ge, and the t rial cou rt did n ot err, mu ch less commit p lain error, in g iving the ex cessive f orce patt ern jury charge. See Gol d v.

11 State, 319 Ga. 14 9, 15 1 – 52 (20 24) (given evidenc e presen ted, trial court d id not err in giv ing charge on excess ive for ce as par t of it s broad er ins tructi ons on sel f - defen se); Welb on v. State, 27 8 Ga. 312, 312 – 13 (2004) (e xplaini ng the excessi ve force char ge, which comes from th e Sugges ted P att ern Ju ry Instru ctions, i s a cor rect statem ent of la w and was proper in light of t he entire just ificatio n charge giv en where d efendant claimed he s hot t he deceas ed fou r to si x times in self - def ense becau se the de ceased was r eaching for a gun). Judgment a ffir med. All the Justices concur.