Jones v. State - Felony Murder Conviction Affirmed

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: February 1 7, 2026 S26A042 3. JONES v. THE S TATE. W ARREN, Presiding J u stice. Appel lant Wil li e Lee Jones wa s conv icte d of felo ny murd er based on aggrav ated ass aul t an d posses sion of a fir earm during the commi ssion of a felony in connec tion with t he shoo ting deat h of Benja min Franc is. 1 Jone s’s sole cla im on ap peal is tha t the e vidence 1 Francis was kille d on May 1 0, 2023. In June 2024, a Gwin nett County grand jury indicte d Jones for malice murder, two coun ts of felony murder (based on aggravate d assault and posses sion of a firearm by a convicted felon), aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the co mmission of a felo ny, and possession of a firearm by a convi cted felon. Michael Davis was also indicted for malic e murder and other cr imes related to Francis’s ki lling. Jones was tried alone fro m November 4 to 7, 2024. (The recor d does not indicate what happened to th e charges again st Davis; his case is not part of this appe al.) The jury found Jones not guilty o f malice murder bu t guilty of the remainin g charges. The trial c ourt sentenced him to serve life in priso n for felony murder based on aggravate d assault and five consecutive years f or possession of a firearm during the commissi on of a felon y. The remaini ng guilty verdicts were vacated or merged. See Dixon v. State, 302 Ga. 691, 697 (2017). Jones filed a timely motion for n ew trial, which he later amended. The trial court deni ed the motion on Octo ber 14, 2025. Jo nes filed a timely notice of appe al, and the case was docketed to the term of th is Court begin ning in December 2025 an d NOTICE: T his opinion is subje ct to modif ication res ulting f rom motion s for rec onside rat ion under Supreme Cou rt 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 website and docket. A bound volu me of the Georgia Reports will contai n the final a nd officia l text of t he opinio n.

2 presen ted a t his tri al was not sufficient as a ma t ter of constit utiona l due p rocess to support those convic tions. 2 As di scu ssed bel ow, tha t claim fails, so w e affirm. (a) In eva luating t he co nstitut ional s ufficie ncy of the e vidence, we vi ew all of th e eviden ce presen ted at trial in th e light m ost favora ble to the verdic ts and con sider w hethe r any ration al juror could h ave foun d the defend ant guil ty bey ond a reas onable doubt of the crim es of w hich he was convi cted. See Jack son v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 3 19 (1979). “ [I]t is th e jur y’s rol e to determi ne the credi bility of the wit nesses and to re solve any co nflicts or inco nsistenc ies in the eviden ce,” Wil liams v. S tate, 316 Ga. 1 47, 151 (2 023) (quot ation marks om itt ed), meaning that “this Co urt does not rewe igh the eviden ce or res olv e conflicti ng test imon y, ” Gobert v. State, 311 Ga. 305, 3 08 (2021) (quotation mark s om itted). submitted for a deci sion on the briefs. 2 Jones also contends that the evide nce was not sufficient to support the counts of felony murder based on poss ession of a firearm b y a convicted felon, aggravated assault, and possession of a f irearm by a convicte d felon. But Jones was not sentenced for those crim es, so his claims re garding them are moot. See, e.g., Ellington v. State, 314 Ga. 335, 340 (2022).

3 Viewed in this l ight, the eviden ce presen ted at Jones’s tri al showed the f ollo wing. A t 4:39 p. m. on May 10, 2023, Jones sho t Franc is five tim es, killing him, on a sidewa lk of Jimmy Car ter Boul evard in No rcross. Witne sses to ld resp onding inve stiga tors that J ones, w ho w as parti ally paral yzed and use d a wheelchai r, went dow n the roa d just a fter the sh ooti ng, an d investi gators appreh ende d him soon aft er. There was bloo d on his shirt, and he said t hat “so meone had cut him o n the ne ck,” b ut invest igators did n ot see any suc h injury. In vestig ators fou nd seven sh ell casi ngs at the sc ene of the s hooting, a 9mm pis tol in a nearby s ewer dr ain, and a utilit y knife o n the ground near Franc is. Inves tigato rs later i ntervi ewed Jon es; the in terview w as video - record ed an d pl ayed f or the ju ry at tri al. Jones told inv estig ators the foll owing. Sh ortly before the shooti ng, h e was at a conven ience sto re on Jimmy Cart er Bouleva rd “minding [his] bus iness, panha ndling,” whe n Franc is, whom he ha d never seen be fore, “ ca me up ar ound th e corne r, grabb ed [him ] by [hi s] neck,” “put a knife behin d [his] neck,” and sai d, “[G ]ive m e your m oney.” F rancis then

4 threw Jones on t he grou nd and “b eat” h im. J ones scream ed f or hel p, and whe n Francis f led, Jones got back in his whee lchair a nd tried to “chas e him down.” Jones th en heard g uns hots, bu t he did n ot have a gun and di d not kn ow who fired. He fled be caus e the gunsho ts “startle d” him. When an inv estigato r told Jon es that th ere was evide nce s howing t hat Jon es shot Fran cis, Jon es resp onded th at Franc is “trie d to kill [him].” Inves tigato rs obtained su rveill ance vi deos from the conven ience store an d other ne arby busi ness es, w hich show ed t he follo wing. A round 4:30 p.m. on th e day of the s hootin g, Franci s app roached Jo nes, threw him to the ground, he ld his whee lchair on top of him, and used a ut ility knife to try to cut a po uch that was hang ing around Jones ’s ne ck. Fran cis wal ked away from Jones at 4:31 p.m. Jon es then g ot back i n his wh eelchair, sp oke to a wom an who w itnes sed th e attack, and use d her cel l phon e. At 4:37 p.m., a man (w ho in vestigators later d etermined was Mich ael Dav is) arriv ed, sp oke to Jones and th e wom an, and pla ced som ething on Jones ’s l ap. D avis and t he woman the n walked down the sid ewalk,

5 where F rancis was standi ng, w hile Jones trav eled th rough a parkin g lot and appro ached Franci s from th e other side. It appea rs that Jones and Fran cis argued for s ever al seconds. At 4:39 p.m., Franc is began t o walk away fr om Jones; Jones rais ed his arm, as if sho oting toward Fran cis; Fran cis r an towa rd Jones; an d Francis fell on top of Jones. J ones pu shed F ranci s away an d fled i n hi s wheelch air, as Davi s and th e wo man ran aw ay. The m edical examin er who performed Fran cis’s aut opsy conclu ded that h e h ad been s hot at l east five ti mes: once i n the back, once in the ba ck of the thigh, onc e in the c hest, and twice in the le ft arm. 3 The examin er det ermin ed t hat each s hot w as fired from at least thr ee fee t away, and she c ollected fr om Fr anci s’s body three bullet s and a bulle t fragme nt. A fi rearms ex amin er c onclu ded th at the bul lets and bullet frag ment, as well as th e sev en 9mm s hell casin gs foun d at the crime s cene, w ere fi red fr om th e 9mm pistol that was foun d in the sew er drai n. In additi on, F rancis ’s bl ood 3 On cross - examinati on, the medical examiner testifi ed that at least one of Francis’s injuries could have been consistent with him “bendin g over approaching” Jones.

6 tested positiv e fo r meth amphe tamine, whi ch, th e m edical ex aminer testifi ed, “can mak e” a pe rson “agg ressiv e.” Jones testi fied at tri al th at after Francis at tacke d him at th e conven ience store an d “cut [hi m] acr oss the neck ” and on h is “face,” Jones “app roached” Fran cis and asked Fran cis wh y he “ put[] his hands on” Jones. They ar gued, and Fr ancis said he was “fixing to come b ack and k ill [Jones].” Jon es “fear[ed] for [his] li fe,” so h e “snatch ed a pis tol fr om “Davi s’[s ] hip.” Francis, who still ha d a knife, “tur ned back aro und and sta rted r unning at [Jo nes],” and Jones sho t. On cross - examinati on, Jones admitted that the attack at the conv enience stor e occurred sever al min utes be fore Jon es sho t; that wh en Jones rais ed th e pistol, Francis had hi s back to Jone s and was wal king awa y; and th at Fran cis came b ack toward Jones aft er Jones began shoo tin g. (b) Jones contends that the evi denc e presen ted a t trial wa s n ot suffi cient as a ma tter of con stitu tio nal du e process b ecaus e the S tate failed to di sprov e beyond a reas onable dou bt his claim of self - defen se. Speci fi call y, Jones argu es that he was j ustified in s hoot ing

7 Franci s because t he evidence show ed that Franc is, while under the influenc e of me thamp hetamine, ha d att acked Jones at th e conven ience s tore and bec ause Jones tes tified on dir ect examinati on that when he l ater appr oached F ranci s, Franci s th reatened to kill Jone s and ran towa rd him wit h a utility knife. This claim fa ils. The evid ence was s uffic ient to autho rize the j ury to conclud e that at the tim e of the sho oting, Jones di d not reason ably beli eve that deadly f orce w as necess ary to d efend him self becau se Fran cis did n ot presen t an “imm inent use of unlawful f orce” t hat c ould caus e “death or grea t bodi ly i njury.” OC GA § 1 6 -3- 21(a) (p rovidi ng, in pert inent part, that a person is just ified in us ing deadly forc e if he “ reason ably beli eves that s uch … force is neces sar y to defe nd himself ” agains t t he “ immine nt use of unlawful f orce ” and “to preven t death o r grea t bodily i njury to hims elf”). I n this r espect, t he eviden ce al lowed the jury to reas onably inf er tha t after Fran cis’s attack on Jones at the conven ien ce sto re ended a nd Fran cis had walk ed down the sidew alk, Jon es cal led Davi s, who soon arrived at the st ore an d gav e Jones a pistol. Jones t hen tr aveled through a

8 nearby park ing lot an d approach ed Fran cis; they argu ed; and a bout eight m inutes a fter t he convenie nce - store a ttack, Jo nes sh ot Francis at least five times. He then fled the scene and initially lie d to invest igato rs, claiming t hat he did no t know w ho fired the sh ots. And alt hough Jo nes po ints to his te stimony on direct exam inati on that Fr ancis said he was “fi xin g to come back and k ill [Jon es]” an d “start ed runni ng at [Jones ]” befor e Jones sh ot, Jon es admi tted on cross - exam ination tha t when he raise d the pi stol, Fran cis w as walk ing away an d onl y cam e back towa rd Jones after Jon es began shoo ting. See William s, 316 G a. at 150 (“It is the r ole of the jury to evalu ate the ev idence an d, when d oing so, th e jury is free to reject any ev idenc e in support of a just ificati on defen se an d to ac cept th e evide nce tha t the sho oting was no t done in self - defens e.” (cleaned up)). In su m, th e ju ry w as auth oriz ed to determine that Jon es did not re asonab ly believe t hat Francis p osed a ny imminent thr eat of harm to him when he s hot, s uch t hat Jones killed Fra ncis in retali ation rath er than i n s elf - def ense. Ac cordingly, the evide nce

9 presen ted a t trial w as co nstitutio nally suf ficie nt to aut horize a ration al jury to r eject Jon es’s clai m of self - defens e and to find him gui lty bey ond a reason able d oubt of f elony murd er bas ed on aggrav ated assa ult an d possession of a firearm d urin g the comm ission of that felo ny. See OCGA § 16 -3- 21(a); Re ddick v. Sta te, 321 Ga. 73, 79 (2025) (c onclu ding that the eviden ce, whi ch allowed the jur y to infer tha t the defend ant shot t he victim while he was retre ating, was consti tuti onall y suffici ent to di sprov e t he defe ndant’s j ustifica tion defe nse and to authorize the jury to f ind him guil ty of fe lony murder b ased on agg ravated ass ault and posses sion of a fi rearm duri ng the commissi on of a felon y); William s, 316 Ga. at 150 – 51 (ho lding tha t the ev idence, which inc luded a video recor ding showing that t he victim was walking away from the defe ndant whe n the d efenda nt shot, autho rized t he j ury to r eject the defen dant’ s cl aim o f sel f - def ense, and noting that even though t here was evi dence tha t the v ictim had ai med a gun at t he defe ndant while they w ere in side an ap artment, the ju ry cou ld h ave con clud ed th at the d efend ant “ did not r easonably beli eve that [the victi m] posed an y

10 imminent threa t of har m to him when he shot” t he victim la ter in a par king lot); Gobert, 311 Ga. at 30 9 (determ ining tha t the evid ence, which s howed that the victi m, who was p art of a grou p tha t ha d be en in a phys ical fig ht with the defendant ’s step - daughter, w as t rying to flee when the defe ndant s hot him, was co nstitut ionally suff icient for the ju ry to reject th e defendan t’s justificati on defe nse a nd to f ind him guil ty of felo ny murder b ased on aggravat ed assau lt be caus e he and his s tep - daug hter wer e not “in any da nger or any imminent threat of harm” at the tim e of th e shooti ng). Jud gment affirm ed. All th e Just ices concu r.