Rogers v. State - Murder Conviction Appeal

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: Ma rch 3, 2026 S2 6A01 28. ROGERS v. TH E STATE. E L LINGTON, Justic e. Ralph Rogers ap peals h is convi cti on s for m ali ce mu rder an d othe r crimes in connec tion wit h the shoo ting dea th of Lama ris Mille r and t he non - fatal shoo tings of Da mien Lee and L e vionte Trell Burr. 1 1 The crimes occurred on June 2 0, 2015. On August 17, 2015, a Miller County grand jury i ndicted Rogers for malice murder of Lamaris Miller (C ount 1); felony murder (Count 2); aggrava ted assault of Lamaris (Co unt 3); aggravated assault of Burr (Count 4); aggravat ed assault of Lee (Count 5); and possession of a firearm durin g the commissio n of a felony (Count 6). At the conclusion of a jury trial that b egan April 4, 2016, th e jury found Rogers guilty on all counts. O n June 20, 2016, th e trial court sentence d Rogers to l ife in prison for malice murder (Count 1). The court purporte d to vacate Counts 2 and 3 by operati on of law. The felony murder charge (Count 2) w as properly vacated by operatio n of law, but the trial court should h ave merged the cou nt of aggravated assa ult of Lamaris (C ount 3) into the cha rge for the malice murder of Lamaris (Count 1). See M cCullough v. S tate, 304 Ga. 29 0, 294 (2018). However, th is merger error makes no practica l difference. The tri al court also i mposed a 20 - year prison ter m for one count of aggravat ed assault (Count 4), to run concurrently with Cou nt 1; a 20 - year prison term for anoth er aggravated assault count (C ount 5), to run consecutivel y to Count 4; an d a 5 - year prison term for the firearm s charge (Count 6), to ru n consecutively to Count 1. NOTICE: T his opinion is sub ject to modif ication resul t ing f rom motions fo r reconsidera tion under Su preme Court Rule 27, the Cour t’s reco nsiderat ion, and editorial revisions by th e Reporter of Decisions. The versi on of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geo rgia Repo rts, desi gnated as the “Final Copy, ” will r eplace an y 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 Rogers contends that th e evi den ce was ins uffici ent as a m att er of consti tution al due pr ocess to suppor t his convi ctions be caus e he acted i n s elf - def ense and that th e trial court abu sed its disc reti on when it c onclud ed t hat t he verd ict was not agains t the we ight of the eviden ce of sel f - def ense while sitting as the “thirte enth juro r” under OCGA §§ 5 -5- 20 and 5 -5- 21. For th e reason s exp lai ned below, w e affirm. 1. View ed in the lig ht most favora bl e to the ve rdicts, the eviden ce pres ented at tri al show ed the follow ing. In J une 2015, Roge rs live d with his gir lfrie nd, Ro sa Mille r, a nd her gra ndson, Lee, in an apar tment in Mil ler Cou nty. Ros a’s s on, L ama ris, lived across the st reet. On th e mornin g of June 20, 2015, Rogers confr onted Le e for t racking d irt into the apar tment wit h his bic ycle. Lamaris walk ed over t o Rosa’s ap artment an d called Burr, who wa s Lee’s Rogers timely filed a motion for new trial on the day of sentencing, which was amended by new counse l on M arch 7, 2018. T he parties ultimat ely agreed to forgo a heari ng on the motion, an d t he trial court de nied the amende d motion for new trial on July 21, 2 025. Rogers fil ed a timel y notice of appeal, a nd the case was d ocketed in this Cou rt to the term beginning in Decem ber 202 5 and sub mitted for a deci sion on th e briefs.

3 mother, to com e pick up Lee bec ause Roge rs was try ing to figh t Lee and b ecaus e Lee could no lon ger l ive with Rogers and Rosa. The St ate’ s witnes ses, whic h include d four b ysta nder - eyewi tnesse s (Mary Men nett e, Jere my St evens, Garr ett Jack son, and J utavius Mot en) and the t wo sur viving v ict ims (Burr an d Lee), testifi ed as to the even ts th at happen ed n ext. B urr arriv ed an d began t o assis t Lee in removin g his bel ongi ngs from Rosa’ s apartmen t. Rogers wa s sitting wit h his da ughter, Raina, o n the porch outs ide of R aina’s apa rtme nt next do or when Burr and R aina began arg uin g. Lamar is, who was s tanding out side of Rosa’s apartmen t, tried to g et the two to stop arguing. Burr testifi ed tha t Rogers j umpe d off Rai na’s p orch, yel lin g at Burr, an d said that he “had something fo r [her], ” to which Burr re plied, “W ell, I got somethi ng for yo u,” be fore goin g to r etrieve a ti re iron f rom her ca r. Rogers told Burr t o step back, an d she s aid no as s he app roached him with t he tire ir on. Eyewit ness Menne tte te stified that Roge rs t hen said, “A b** ch g oin g to di e today. ” Mennet te hea rd Lee t ell Rogers, “Mr. Ral ph, I kno w you got a gun,” an d Rogers r epl y,

4 “Yes. I ’m goi ng to u se it.” Menn ette, Steven s, Burr, and Lee al l testifie d that R ogers then shot Bu rr in the ch est as sh e began to tu rn to wal k away, and a fter she fell onto her chest, Ro gers shot her i n the back. Me nnette and S tevens test ified t hat L a maris, unarme d, approa ched R oge rs on th e sid ewalk i n front of Rosa ’s apartmen t an d said, “ Why you shot m y sister, you might [] as w ell s hoot m e,” and Roge rs shot Lamaris in his che st mult iple t imes, k illing him. Stevens, Moten, and Lee testifi ed that Lee began to ru n away, an d Rogers chased h im to the other side of th e street an d shot h im i n th e leg w hil e he was runn ing away. A fter Lee fel l to th e ground, R ogers stood ov er him an d s hot him a gain in the arm and collar bone. Rogers went into th e apa rtment to retri eve an oth er m agazi ne, and wh en he went b ack ou tside, Rosa and eyew itness Jack son approa ched Rog ers to t ry t o cal m him do wn, but Roge rs pointe d the gun at t hem unt il they b acked away without Rogers firing a nother shot. F ollo wing a 911 call l aw enforc ement ar rived at th e scen e and found Lama ris, deceas ed, Burr in cri tical condi tion, an d Lee, wounde d but stable. Law enforc ement locat ed a .40 - caliber gun ne xt

5 to Rogers, which a GBI medi cal exam iner l ate r de termi ned to b e th e weapon that cau sed Lama ris’s fat al wou nds an d which a GBI firearm s ex pert match ed to th e n ine sp ent sh ell casi ngs located at the s cene. At tr ial, Roger s test ified in his own d efense to t he fo llowing. The m ornin g began wi th Rogers n oticing the m ud marks from Lee’s bicycl e in the apa rtment, and R ogers “hollered ” d owns tairs at Ro sa abo ut his frustr ations wit h Lee. R ogers wen t out side and s aw Lee comin g back acr oss th e str eet from L amaris’s h ous e. Wh en Rog ers asked Lee w hat he told Lam aris, Lee repli ed that he tol d Lam aris that he did not l ike h ow Rog ers had spok en to R osa. Rogers to ld Lee that one of them wou ld n eed t o mov e out. The two began arguing. About an hour l ater, Bur r arrived and con front ed R ogers, sa ying, “ I got so mething f or you.” Rogers t ook this t o mean s he was goi ng to retriev e a gun, so h e went ups tairs to retrieve h is gun. W hen he came back d ownstairs, he re aliz ed tha t Bu rr had retriev ed a ti re iron. Burr, Lama ris, and L ee al l cam e ins ide Ros a’s apa rtmen t and were a rguing w ith Rog ers, bu t as Rogers tried to move aroun d th e

6 group, they shove d him outsid e and locked the door behind him, so he wal ked nex t d oor to Rain a’s ap artment. Roge rs’s tes timony co ntinued as fo llows. He talked wit h his daugh ter in side h er apa rtment and then smoked a cigarette ou tside on her porch. He saw Lee begin to tote h is belongings back and forth from R osa’s apartmen t to Bu rr’s car, and L amari s an d Bu rr were helping p ut the la st load in. Bu rr was making c omments t owards Rogers, and Rai na said sh e was ti red o f how they wer e speak ing about R ogers. When B urr s tar ted app roaching Rain a, Lamaris stepped in f ront of Bu rr and shov ed Rai na. Rogers g ot up t o defen d Ra ina, an d Lee “shot f rom acros s th e road li ke a jet” headi ng towa rds Rogers. Burr, with t he tire iron in hand, and La maris both be gan “chargi ng” towards R ogers ’s direct ion with Lee, and Lam aris sh oved Rogers. Rogers sh oved Lamari s bac k and told th em to back u p. The y were s o clos e to Rog ers th at he t houg ht Bu rr was about to h it hi m with the tire iron, so he “pulled [his] gun and told them to back up again, ” but Burr was in t he motion of swing ing the t ire iron. Rog ers fire d his gun, “ not to kill nobo dy,” b ut t o “stop th em from hu rting

7 [him ] becau se [h e] was scar ed” w ith t hem comi ng at him. R ogers fire d “like thr ee shots” and did not know where he hit each of the m beca use he “ j ust fir ed” as he was backing u p. Rog er s was sca red. He ran back int o Rosa’s apa rtmen t to grab ano ther magazi ne. He d id not kno w how many s hots he fired b ecause a ll he could t hink abo ut was t he group hurting him o r wha t would ha ppen if they hit him with the tire iron and grab bed his gun, s o he wa s jus t “f iring to defe nd [him]s elf.” 2. Rogers conten ds th at the evidenc e presented at tri al was insuffic ient a s a matter of co nstitutio nal due process to s upport his convi ctions be caus e he pre sented ev iden ce of e ach elem ent of se lf - defen se, an d th e State presen ted n o eviden ce suffi cient to dispr ove justi fication bey on d a reas ona ble dou bt. We dis agre e. When th is Court eval uate s a chal len ge to the suf fici ency of the eviden ce, “ we view all of the e vidence present ed at tria l in the light most favo rable to th e verdi ct and ask wh ethe r any rati onal trier of fact could h ave foun d the defen dant gui lty bey ond a rea sonable doubt of the c rimes of whi ch he was con vict ed. ” Jones v. St ate, 30 4

8 Ga. 594, 598 (201 8) (ci tin g Jack son v. Vi rginia, 443 US 3 07, 3 18 – 19 (1979)). “T his Cou rt does not rew eig h evi dence or r esol ve con flict s i n testim ony bu t r ather d efers to t he ju ry’s as sess men t of th e weig ht and cr edibil ity of the ev iden ce.” Davis v. State, 316 Ga. 418, 420 (2023) (quot ation marks omitte d). Mo reove r, “[w]her e confli cting eviden ce w as pr esen ted r egard ing wh ether a def end ant act ed in sel f - defen se in sho otin g the victi m, th e jury is fr ee to r eject the evidence in suppo rt of self - defense an d to a ccep t the evi dence th at the defe ndant d id not act in s elf - defense.” Mathis v. State, 309 Ga. 11 0, 112 (202 0) (quot ation marks omi tted). See al so G oodso n v. State, 30 5 Ga. 246, 2 48 (20 19) (“[E]ven if th e jury accepted [t he a p pellant] ’s vers ion of event s, it was st ill author ized to conc lude [t he a p pellant] did no t act in s elf - defense be cause he cont inu ed sho oting the v ictim after h e no longe r pos ed any thre at to [the a ppe llant].”). Rogers contends th at the evid ence sh owed t hat B urr, Lama ris, and Lee “ aggressive [ly ] advan ce [d ]” towa rd Rogers, “pl acing [him ] in reason able fear of i mmi nent g reat bodi ly injury,” t hat Rogers tried to withd raw from the con fron tati on, that Bur r was ar med with a tire

9 iron ca pable of inflicting fat al injuries, and tha t he ha d no opportu nit y to retreat or tim e for an alternati ve to di scharg ing his firearm. At trial, the State presented t estimon y of four bystand er eyewitnesses, as well a s the test imony o f Burr and Le e, which suppor ted the jury ’s ve rdict. The witn esses saw Bu rr approach Rogers with the ti re iron, Rogers sh oot Bur r, an d, aft er Burr fell to the gro und, Rogers sho o t h er agai n in th e back. They tes tifie d that when Lamari s, u narmed, app roac hed Rog ers, a sking why he s hot Lamari s’s sis ter, R ogers then shot Lamari s. The y test ified that Lee then r an across the stre et a nd that Ro gers follow ed Lee, shot him in the back, st ood o ver hi m, and s hot him again. In cont rast, Roger s tes tified in his own defe nse that, f ollowing B urr’ s argume nt with Rain a, Bu rr and Lamaris beg an “charg ing ” at R ogers w hile Bu rr was a rmed w ith the ti re iron and got s o clos e to Rog ers that he thought Burr w as about to hit him. H e testi fied that Burr, Lama ris, and Lee al l acted tog ether an d p laced him “ in fea r for [his] lif e,” so he fir ed “like three sho ts” to sto p them fro m hurting him.

10 Viewing t his evi denc e in the light m ost f avorable to the verdic t s and deferri ng to t he ju ry’ s asses sment of th e weig ht and credi bili ty of th e evidence, we con clu de th at the ev iden ce was suffi cient t o authori ze a ra tion al tri er of fact to fi nd bey ond a reason able d oubt that Rogers wa s guilty of the cri mes ch arged and that the S tate offer ed ev idenc e suffici ent f or a ju ry to disbel ieve Rogers ’s self - defense cl aim. T he S tate pres ented eviden ce th at, althou gh Burr ap proach ed Rog ers with a tire iron, Rogers sh ot Bur r a secon d time a fter she fell to th e groun d; that Lamar is was unarm ed and n ot acting aggr essiv ely towa rd Rog ers be fore R ogers shot him; a nd that Lee r a n aw ay f rom R ogers across the street before Rogers followed h im and shot h im three times, first in the le g while Lee was ru nning, and th en in the arm and col lar bone as Lee w as lying on t he ground. Mor eover, “question s ab out the exi sten ce o f justi fication are for the jury to resol ve, an d the ju ry may rej ect an y eviden ce i n su pport of a jus tificat ion def ense and accept eviden ce that a shooting w as not done in self - defense.” Gi bb s v. State, 309 Ga. 562, 564 (2020) (punct uatio n omitt ed). The only evid ence of self -

11 defen se came from Rog ers’s own testimon y, and t he ju ry was no t requir ed to ac cep t Rog ers’s versio n of ev ents, especially in lig ht of the ot her ev id ence at trial. See Mathis, 309 Ga. at 11 2. See al so Goodson, 305 G a. at 248. Acc ordingly, the eviden ce was cons titutio nally suffici ent t o supp ort Rogers ’s convic tions. 3. Rogers argues that th e trial court abus ed i ts di scret ion by denying his moti on for new tr ial on the “ genera l grounds ” set f orth in OCGA §§ 5 -5- 20 and 5 -5- 21. Specif ically, he cont ends t hat the tria l court ab used its d iscretio n by focusing o n Rogers ’s mista ken tes timony re garding the nu mber of sh ots he fired, i gnored th e subst antia l evidenc e sup porting his t estim ony, a nd erro neously treat ed his case as a “credi bili ty con test.” Because Rogers d oes not argue, however, th at th e trial court ap plied the wr ong sta ndard, this claim lacks m erit. “Even w he n the evide nce is legally suf ficie nt to sust ain a convi ction, a tria l ju dge m ay gran t a new trial i f th e verdi ct o f the jury is ‘con trary to... the princ iples of justice and equity, ’ OCGA § 5- 5- 20, or i f the ve rdict is ‘deci dedl y and strongl y agai nst th e weig ht

12 of the eviden ce.’ OCG A § 5-5- 21. ” White v. State, 3 19 Ga. 36 7, 374 (2024) (cit ation and quot ation m ar ks omi tted). When t hese so - called “gen eral groun ds” are pr operly raised i n a tim el y moti on for ne w trial, the t rial judg e must ex erci se a bro ad dis cretion t o sit as a “thi rteen th juror. ”... [T]he meri ts of the tri al court’s de cisi on on the general grou nds are n ot subject t o our review, an d the dec ision to grant a ne w trial on the g enera l grounds is veste d sol ely i n th e trial court. Id. “On appell ate review, our role i s limited to deter min ing wh ether the trial court ex ercised tha t disc retion.” Whisnant v. St ate, 322 G a. 253, 2 59 (20 25). “ We presu me, in th e absen ce of a ffi rmativ e evi dence to the cont rary, that th e trial court d id prop erl y exerci se such discre tion. ” Ward v. State, 31 6 Ga. 295, 299 (202 3) (quotation marks omitted). F urthe rmore, “ [t] he law do es n ot requ ire a t rial c ourt to pro vide finding s r egard ing the f actors it consid ered in e xerc ising its discr etion as th e thi rteenth jur or, so l ong as it is clear th at the tri al court applied th e correct legal s tandard and exerci sed its d isc retion under OCGA §§ 5 -5- 20 and 5 -5- 21.” Stat e v. Dens on, 306 Ga. 795, 799 (2019). Here, th e trial co urt set out the leg al stan dard for granti ng a

13 motion on the g en eral g round s an d express ly ackno wledge d that it had d iscret ion in ruling o n suc h a mo tion. A nd Rogers does n ot ar gue that th e trial cou rt applied the wron g stand ard. Theref ore, his cla im presen ts noth in g for ou r revi ew becaus e we d o not rev iew t he tri al court’s exe rcise of di screti on u nder t hes e circu mst an ces. See Wa rd, 316 Ga. at 299. See als o Norw ood v. S tat e, ___ Ga. ___ (2025), 924 SE2d 3 07 (2 025). See al so Welsch v. St ate, ___ Ga. ___ (2025), S25 A1094, slip op. at 11 (Ga. Feb. 3, 202 6). Acc ordin gly, we affi rm the t rial c ourt ’s denial of Rog ers ’s m otion for a new trial. Judgment a ffi rmed. All the J ustices c oncu r.