FI RST DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , GOBEI L and PI PKI N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w
. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

M ay 15, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 523. CA B RERA

- Z A MA RRI PA v . TH E STA TE.

B A R N E S , Presid ing J u d ge.
Fo llo w ing a j u r y t rial, Stew art A lo nz o Cabrera- Z amarrip a (“ Cabrera” ) w as

c o nv ic ted o f armed r o bbery, po ssessio n of a firearm du r ing t he c o mmissio n o f a
f elo ny, and o ther o f

f e nses arising o u t o f the t hef t o f a pair o f limited ed itio n sneak ers.
A rgu ing t hat he is entitled to new trial, Cabrera c o ntend s that the trial c o u rt erred by

ad mitting into e v id e nc e a stip u latio n w itho u t f irst d etermining that he k no w ingly and

v o lu ntarily w aiv e d his c o nstitu tio nal rights as to the stip u lated f ac ts and ev id enc e.
Cabrera f u rther maintains that the t r ial c o u rt gav e erro neo us j u ry instru ctio ns o n the

law o f f a c tu al stip u latio ns and o n p o ssessio n o f a f irearm d u ring the c o m missio n o f a
f elo ny. Fo r the reaso ns d isc u ssed belo w , w e af f irm.Co nstru ed in the light m ost f av o rable to the v erd ic t, 1 t he ev id enc e sho w ed that

Gu s tav o Camp a, a high sc ho o l s tu d ent, so ld p airs o f limited ed itio n sneak ers, and he arranged thro u gh a s o c ial med ia ap p to sell a p air o f Yeez y 350 B red s to a bu yer later

id entif ied as Cabrera. On the af

terno o n o f

J u ly 1 3, 201 9, Camp a had his f riend , M yles

M o o n, d riv e him to a K r o ger p ark ing lo t in Gw innett Co u nty to f inaliz e the sale. Camp a’ s f

riend D iand re Garrett ro d e w ith them. A f t er they arriv ed at the p ark ing lo t, they s aw Cabrera in a p ark ed c ar w ith his f riend , J o se “ Iv an” Gu ev ara. B ec au se it w as raining, Camp a inv ited Cabrera into M o o n’ s c ar to d isc u ss the sale, a nd bo th Cabrera

and Gu ev ara go t into t he bac k s e at

. D u r ing the ensu ing d isc u ssio n ov er the sho es,
M o o n sat in the d riv er’ s seat, Camp a in the f ro nt p assenger s eat, Garrett in the right

rear p assenger s eat, Gu ev a ra in the c enter rear p assenger seat, and Cabrera in the lef t

rear p assenger seat.

A s the d isc u ssio n c o ntinu ed , Cam p a h a n d e d the sho es to Cabrera so that he

c o u ld insp ec t them. Cabrera, ho w ev er, p u t the sho es in his b o o k b ag, anno u nc ed that

he w as tak ing them, and pu lled o u t a hand gu n. Cabrera p ointed the hand gu n at Camp a
and Garrett. A s Cabrera exited f r o m t h e c a r w ith the sho es, Garrett reac hed f o r the

1 See Ja c ks o n v
. Vi rgi n i a , 443 U. S. 307 , 31 9 (I I I ) (B ) (9 9 SCt 27 81 , 6 1 LE2d 56 0) (1 97 9 ).

2hand gu n, and Cabrera f ired tw o sho ts into t he c a r. One o f the s ho t s w o u nd e d Garrett,
and the other w o u nd ed Gu ev ara. Cabrera and Gu ev ara ran o f f , go t into their c ar, and

f led f ro m the p ark ing lo t

. I m med iately af

ter the sho o ting, M oo n d ro v e Camp a and Garrett to Gw innett

M ed ic a l Center, w here Garrett w as treated f o r his gu nsho t w o u nd s. The three o f them

su bsequ ently w ere interv iew ed by the p o lic e at the ho sp ital. Garrett s ho wed a n o f f ic er

p ho to grap hs o f Cabrera o n so c ial med ia and later id entif ied him i n a p h o t o grap hic

lineu p as the sho o ter. M o o n als o w as sho w n a p ho t ograp hic lineu p and id entif ied

Cabrera as the sho o t e r. A dd itio nally, M o o n c o nsented t o the searc h o f his c ar, and a

c rime s c ene inv estigato r d isc o v ered a bu llet p ro j ec t ile lo d ged in the bac k o f the f ro nt

p assenger se a t a n d a s h ell casing ej ec t e d f ro m a
. 40 c aliber firearm o n the lef t rear

p assenger seat. B lo o d w as v isible in the rear p assenger c o mp artment o f the c a r and o n the rear p assenger d o o r s.
The p o lic e obtained a se a r c h w arrant f o r Cabrera’ s resid e nc e. D u ring the

s e a r c h , t h e p o lic e f

o u nd a
. 40 c aliber p isto l and a hand gu n laser site in Cabrera’ s
bed ro o m, bu t f

u r ther testing ind ic ated that the hand gu n w as no t the o ne u sed in the

3sho o t ing. A mo ng o ther items, the p o lic e f ou nd a bo ok b a g a n d a co llec tio n o f sho es
and sho e bo xes, bu t no t the sho es tak en f r o m Camp a
. A d d itio nally, a s p a rt of their inv estigatio n, the po lic e o btained co p ies o f

K ro ger’ s sec u rity c a mera v id e o s. One v id eo sho w ed tw o c ars lo c ated in the a rea o f the

s h o o ting inc id ent and a p erso n ru nning in a w hite shirt, bu t the c a mera w as to o f a r

aw ay to o c onf

irm the mak es or the mo d e ls o f the c ars o r the id e ntity o f t h e p erso n

ru nning.

Sho rtly a f

t er the sho o ting, the po lic e also interv iew ed Cabrera’ s f riend , Gu e v ara, w ho s o u ght treatment at a d if f erent ho sp ital. Gu ev ara initially to ld t he p o lic e
that he had been sh o t at a c o u nty p ark af ter he w ent t here t o p u rc hase so me sho es
f ro m so meo ne. Gu ev a ra later c o nc ed ed to an inv estigato r that the sho o ting oc c u rred

at t he Kro ger d u ring a sho e d eal, bu t h e c l aimed t hat t he driv er of the o ther c ar w as
the o ne w ho f

ired a gu n.
Cabrera w as arrested a nd ind ic ted o n charges o f armed r o bbery, aggrav ated

assau lt (tw o c o u nts), thef t by tak ing, and p o ssessio n o f a f irearm d u ring the

c o mmissio n o f a f

elo ny (armed ro bbery). A t trial, Camp a and Garrett testif ied abo u t
the sho e d eal as d esc ribed abo v e and id entif ied Cabrera as the sho o ter. The r ec o rd ed

4p o lic e interv iew s o f Camp a, Garrett, and M o o n in w hic h they d esc r ibed the sho o ting

inc id ent also w ere intro d u c ed into ev id enc e and p layed f o r the j u ry. I n a d d itio n to the

resp o nd ing o ff

ic ers and inv estigato rs inv olv ed in the c a se, the State c alled the c rime

sc ene inv estigato r w ho p ho to grap hed and pro c essed t he ev id enc e relating to M o o n’ s

c ar, and she o p ined t hat the lo c atio ns o f the bu llet c a s i n g an d pro j ec tile w ere

c o nsistent with so meo ne f iring the gu n w hile si t t i n g in o r e xiting f ro m the lef

t rear

p assenger seat.
The State also c a l l ed Gu ev ara as a w itness. Gu e v ara testif ied abo u t the sho e
d eal, bu t he maintained that he d id no t see Cabrer a w ith a gu n, that he blac k ed o u t

w hen he go t sho t , and that he d id no t k no w who sho t him. A c c o rd ing to Gu ev ara, he

remembered hearing gu nsho t s bu t c o u ld no lo nger rec all s eeing anyo ne w ith a gu n in

the c ar that d ay.
A d d itio nally, a w ritten list o f stip u latio ns s igned by the p ro sec u to r and

Cabrera’ s c o u nsel w as ad m i t t e d into ev id enc e and read into the rec ord

. The stip u latio ns p ertained to the searc h o f Cabrera’ s resid enc e and t he items f o und there;

the sec u rity c amera v id eo obtained f ro m K ro ger; the au dio and vid eo r ec o rd ings o f the

5p o lic e inter v i e w s o f M o o n, Camp a, Garrett, and Gu ev ara; a n inv e stigato r’ s rep o rt

abo u t the c ase; and the p ho to grap hic lineu p s sho wn to Garrett and M o on.
A f ter the State rested , the d ef ense c alled a f

irearm ballistic s exp ert, w ho

d isagreed w ith the c rime sc e n e i n v estigato r’ s assessment o f t he traj ec to ry o f the

gu nf ire based o n the lo c atio n o f the p ro j ec tile and shell c asing f o u nd in M o o n’ s c ar.
Cabrera elec ted no t to testif y. The j u ry retu rned a v erd ic t o f gu ilty o n all c o u nts. Cabrera su bsequ ently f iled

a mo tio n f

o r new t rial, as amend ed , w hic h the trial c o u rt d enied , exc e p t w ith resp ec t

to a sentenc ing issu e
. Cabrera f iled a no tic e of ap peal f

ro m that o rd er, bu t this Co urt
d ismissed the a p p eal bec a use Cabrera had no t yet b e en r e sentenc ed

. A f ter the trial

c o u rt resentenc ed Cabrera, 2 his ap p eal w a s retransmitted to this Co u rt and is no w

p ro p e rly bef

o re u s f o r rev iew

.

2 I n Cabrera’ s o riginal sentenc e, the trial co u rt merged o ne c o unt o f aggrav ated
assau lt and the t hef

t by tak ing co u nt into the armed ro bbery c ou nt. I n the resentenc ing
o rd er, the trial co u rt determined that the sec o nd aggrav a ted assau lt c o u nt also sho u ld be m erg ed into the armed ro b bery c o u nt. On the armed ro bbery co u nt and the p o ssessio n o f a f

irearm d u ring the c o mmissio n o f a f elo ny c o u nt, C a b r era w as sentenc ed to a t otal o f 25 years, w ith the first 1 5 years to be serv ed in c o nf inement and the remaind er to be serv ed o n p ro batio n.
61

. Cabrera c o ntend s that the trial c o u rt erred by ad mitting into ev id enc e the

w ritten list o f stip u latio ns signed by the p ro sec u to r and d ef ense co u nsel. A c c o rd ing

to Cabrera, by stip u lating t o c ertain f ac ts and to the ad m issio n o f c ertain ev id enc e, he

w aiv e d his f

u nd amental c o nstitu tio nal rights to trial by j ury, to p ro o f o f gu ilt beyo nd

a reaso nable d o u bt, to c o nf ro nt w itnesses, and to du e p ro c ess as to tho se stip u latio ns.
Cabrera m aintains that the trial c o u rt s ho u ld hav e o btained his exp ress, p erso nal

w aiv e r o f tho se c o nstitu t io nal rights w ith resp ec t to t he stip u lati o n s b ef o re their

ad missio n at trial.

C a b r e r a ’s argu m ent is u np ersu asiv e. W e hav e p rev io u sly rej ec t ed the a r g u m e n t
that a trial c o u rt m ust qu estio n a d ef end ant a s to w hether he agrees to a stip u latio n

au tho riz ed by his c o u nsel o r o btain a p erso n a l w a i v e r f ro m a d ef

end ant o f his

c o nstitu tio nal r ights b ef

o re ad mitting a stip u latio n at trial. See Mu ldro w v
. Sta te , 322
Ga. A p p. 1 9 0, 1 9 4- 1 9 5 (3) (7 44 SE2d 41 3) (201 3); L i t tlej o hn v
. S ta te , 320 Ga. A p p
. 1 9 7 ,
204- 205 (3) (7 39 SE2d 6 82) (201 3); Ma rti n v
. S t a te , 251 Ga. A p p. 149 , 1 49 -1 50 (1 ) (553

SE2d 827 ) (2001 ). Rather, a stip u latio n mad e b y d ef ense c o unsel a nd p resented to the j u ry in th e d e f

e n d ant’ s p resenc e is su f

f ic ient to bind the d ef

end ant and sho w his

au tho riz atio n. See Mu l

dro w , 322 Ga. A p p
. at 1 9 5 (3).

7Generally, a s tatement by d e f e nse c o u nsel m ad e in t he p resenc e o f the d ef end ant relating to the d ef

end ant’ s c o nd u c t is c o nsid ered a statement by the d ef

end ant himself if the d e f

e nd a nt d oes no t r ep u d iate c ou nsel’ s

au tho rity to mak e the statement. The general ru l e a s t o stip u latio ns is that onc e mad e in the c o u rse o f j u d ic ial p ro c e e d ings an esto p p el r e su lts

u nless the c omp laining p a rty c an sho w f rau d o r mistak e. Su ch an exp ress stip u latio n sho uld generally be mad e in w riting o r in o p en c o u rt.
(Citatio n and p u nc t u atio n o mitted

. ) Fla di n g v
. S ta te , 327 Ga. A p p
. 346 , 350 (1 ) (7 59
SE2d 6 7) (201 4).

The w ritten list o f st i p u l a t i o ns w as agreed to by Cabrera’ s c ou nsel, a d mitted

into ev id enc e, and read to the j u ry in Cabrera’ s p resenc e w itho u t o bj ec t io n. A nd

C a b rera d o es no t c laim f rau d o r mistak e in reac hing the stip u latio ns. U nd e r t h e s e

c irc umstanc es, Cabrera “ ac qu ies c e d in the stip u latio ns, and the stip u latio ns w ere
bind ing u p o n him. ” Li ttlej o hn , 320 Ga. A p p
. at 205 (3). See Fla di n g , 327 Ga. A p p
. at

350- 351 (1 ); Mu ldro w , 322 Ga. A p p
. at 19 5 (3). W e theref ore d isc ern no erro r by the

trial c o u rt in the ad missio n o f the stip u latio ns. 3

3 T he s tip u latio ns in the p resent case did no t inc lu d e any stip u l a t i o n s to a material element o f an o f f ense, su c h as intent. Ou r o p i n i o n thu s d o es no t ad d ress stip u latio ns that c o u ld be c o nstru ed as in the natu re o f a p lea o f gu ilt.

82. Cabrera also c o ntend s that the trial c o u rt gav e a n erro neo u s j u r y instru c tio n

o n the law o f

f a c tu al stip u latio ns. The trial c o u rt instru c ted the j u ry:
I t is yo u r r esp o nsibility to d etermine the f ac ts o f this c ase fro m all

o f the e v id enc e p resented

. Then yo u mu st ap p ly the law I giv e yo u in this

c harge to the f

ac ts as [yo u ] f

ind them to be.

Yo u r o ath requ ires that y o u will d ec id e this c ase based o n the

ev id enc e
. Ev id e nc e is the means b y w hic h any f ac t that is pu t in issu e is established o r d isp ro v ed

. Ev id enc e inc lu des all o f the testimo ny o f the

w itnesses and any exhibits ad mitted d u ring the trial and stip u latio ns o f the atto r neys; that is, any f ac ts to w hic h the atto rneys hav e agreed with ap p ro v al by t he Co urt. Ev id enc e d o es no t in c l u d e t he ind ic tment, the p lea o f no t gu ilty , o p ening o r c lo s ing remark s o f t he atto rneys, o r qu estio ns ask ed by the atto rneys.

T h e p a r t i e s h a v e e n t e r e d into stip ulatio ns that hav e been ap p ro v ed by the Co u rt a bo u t f

ac ts, t estimo n y , d oc u ments, and exhibits. T he sp ec if ic stip u latio ns o f the p arties, w i th all o f the d etails, hav e been p rev io u sly read to yo u and ad mitted into ev id enc e fo r yo u r c o nsid eratio n as State’ s Exhibit 7

.

W here pa rti e s s t i pu la te fa cts , tha t i s i n the n a t u re o f ev i den ce, a n d yo u

mu s t ta ke tha t fa ct o r tho

s e fa cts a s a gi

v en wi tho u t t

h e n eces s i ty o f fu rther pro o f. Yo u ma ke a ll deci

s i o n s b a s ed o n t

he ev i den ce in t hi s ca s e.

9W here p arties stip u late testimo ny, d o c uments, and e xhibits, this

is also in the natu re o f ev id enc e. Yo u may tak e that testimo ny as if it w ere giv en in c o u rt, and yo u may rely o n it if yo u f ind it cred ible. H o w e v er, either party may d isp u t e su c h testimo ny by o ther ev id enc e. A gain, yo u mak e all d ec isio ns based o n the ev id enc e in this c ase.
(Emp hasis su p p lied

. ) A c c ord ing to Cabrera, the italic iz ed p ortio n o f the instru c tio n

w as imp ro p er b e c a u se it pro hibited the j ury f ro m f ind ing a f ac t inc o nsistent w ith any
f ac tu al stip u latio n.
B e c au se Cabrera d id no t o b j ec t to the j u ry instru c tio n w hen it w as giv en, w e

rev iew the instru c tio n only fo r p lain e rro r. OCGA § 1 7 -8- 58 ( b); Gru llo n v
. Sta te , 31 3
Ga. 40, 44- 45 (2) (86 7 SE2d 9 5) (2021 ).

The f o u r p ro ngs o f the p lain erro r a n a l y s i s a r e set o u t in S ta te v
. Kelly , 29 0 Ga. 29 , 33 (2) (a) (7 1 8 SE2d 232) (201 1 ), as f o llo w s : First, there

mu st be an erro r or d ef

ec t

– s o me so rt o f d ev iatio n f ro m a legal ru le

– tha t has no t been intentio nally relinqu ished o r aband o ned , i. e. , af f irmativ ely w aiv ed , by the ap p ellant

. S ec o n d , the legal erro r mu s t be

c lear o r o b v i o u s, rather than su bj ec t to reaso nable d isp u te. Third , the

erro r m u st hav e af

f ec ted the ap pellant’ s s u bstantial rights, w hic h in the

o rd inary c ase means he mu st d emo nstrate that it af f e c ted the o u tc o m e

o f the trial c o u rt p ro c e ed ings. Fo u rth and finally, if the abo v e three p ro ngs are satisf

ied , the ap p ellate c o urt has the d isc retio n to remed y the

erro r – d isc retio n w hic h o u ght t o be exerc ised only if the erro r serio u sly

10af

f ec ts the fairness, integrity o r p u blic r ep u tatio n o f j u d ic ial pro c eed ings. T h e Co urt need no t analyz e all of the elements of the p lain e rro r t e s t

w hen the ap p ellant f

ails to establish o ne o f

them.
(Citatio ns, p u nc tu atio n, and emp hasis o mitted

. ) S i mmo n s v
. S ta te , 31 4 Ga. 883, 889 (2) (880 SE2d 1 25) (2022).

A p p lying this test, we co nc lu d e that Cabrera has f ailed to e s tablish p lain erro r
bec au se he has no t sho w n that the tr i a l c o u r t ’ s instru c tio n o n f a c tu al stip u latio ns

c o nstitu ted legal erro r that was c lear o r o bv io u s. T he italic iz ed langu a g e c hallenged by Cabrera c a me d irec tly f ro m Geo rgia’ s p attern j u ry instru c tio ns in ef f ec t at the time

o f trial, and Cabrera has no t p o inted to any c o ntro l l i n g a u t h ority that the p attern
instru c tio n is imp ro p er. See Geo rgia Su ggested Pattern J u ry I nstru c tio ns, V o l. I I :
Criminal C a s e s § 1

. 30. 1 2. M o reo v er, it is w ell- established that a fac tu al stip u latio n

“ obv iate[s] the need f

o r p ro o f , ” Jen ki n s v
. S t a te , 31 3 Ga. 81 , 87 ( 2) (86 8 SE2d 205) (2022) (c itatio n a nd p u nc tu a tio n o mitted ), and it resu lts in an esto p p el and

“ a mo u nt[s] to a c o nc lu siv ely bind ing ad missi o n i n j u d ic io

. ” (Citatio ns and

p u nc tu atio n o mitted .) Fla di n g , 327 Ga. A p p
. at 350 (1 ). A c c o rd ingly, Cabrera has no t
sho w n that the trial c ou rt’ s giv ing o f the c harge o n f ac tu al stip u latio ns was c learly o r

o bv io u sly erro neo u s , and he t hu s c anno t satisf y the sec o nd p r o ng o f the p lain erro r

11test. See D eMu ro v
. Sta te , 31 7 Ga. 1 55, 1 6 8 (3) ( 89 2 SE2d 31 ) ( 2023) (“ [T]he [j u ry]

instru c tio ns w ere no t erro neo u s in v iew o f the u nequ iv o cally c lear wo rd s of a statu t e

o r co urt ru le or i n v i e w o f c o ntro lling p rec ed ent. I n the absenc e o f c o ntro lling

au tho rity establishing that any erro r in the ju ry i n s tr u c tio ns at issu e w as o bv io u s beyo nd r easo nable d isp ute, t he ap p ellant c o u ld no t mee t t h e s ec o nd pro ng o f the

p lain- erro r test. ” ); S i

mmo n s , 31 4 Ga. at 889

- 89 0 (2) (a) (ho ld ing that def end ant f ailed

to sho w c lear and obv io u s e rro r in j u ry instru ctio n, w here the instru c t io n ap p eared in

Geo rgia’ s p attern j u ry instru c tio ns, and the d ef end ant did no t p oint to any au tho r ity

sho w i n g that the pattern instru c tio n w as d ef ic ient); W

illi a ms v
. S ta te , 304 Ga. 455,

458- 459 (3) (81 8 SE2d 6 53) (201 8) (c o nc lu d ing that d ef e nd ant f ailed to s ho w that giv ing o f j u ry instru ct i o n t h a t wa s “s u bstantially id entic al to the su ggested p attern j u ry
instru c tio n” c onstitu ted c lear and o bv io u s e rro r); Wi lli a ms v. S ta te , 29 7 Ga. 46 0, 46 5 (3) (7 73 SE2d 21 3) (201 5) (ho ld ing that d e f e n d a n t f ailed to sho w that giv ing o f j u ry
instru c tio n d r a w n f

ro m G eo rgia’ s p attern j u ry instru c t io ns w ere c lear and o bv io u s

erro r). See also Mu s e v
. S ta t e , 31 6 Ga. 6 39 , 6 6 7 (9 ) (b) (889 SE2d 885) (2023) (“ A s to
the sec ond p art o f the p lain erro r test, an erro r is p lain if it is c lear o r obv io u s u nd er

c u r rent law

. A n e rro r c a nno t be p lain w here there is no co ntro lling au tho r ity o n p o int

12o r if a d ef

end ant’ s theo r y requ ires the extensio n o f p rec ed ent. ” ) (c itatio n and

p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

3. Lastly, Cabrera argu e s that the trial c o u rt gav e a n erro neo u s ju ry instru c tio n

o n po ssessio n o f a f

irearm d uring the c o m missio n o f a f e lo ny. That o f

f ense is d ef

ined

in OCGA § 1 6

- 1 1

- 1 06 , w hic h p ro v id es in relev ant p art that “ [a]ny p erso n w ho shall

hav e o n o r w ithin arm’ s r eac h o f his or her p erso n a f irearm

. . . d u ring the c o mmissio n

o f

. . . [a]ny c rime against o r inv o lv ing the p erso n of ano ther

. . . a nd w hic h c rime is a
f elo ny, c ommits a f

elo ny[. ]” OCGA § 1 6- 1 1

- 1 06 (b) (1 ). H ere, as pa r t o f its j u ry
instru c tio n o n the f

irearm p o s sessio n o f

fense, the trial c o u rt instru c ted the j u ry that

“ a rmed ro bbery, as alleged in this ind ic tment, is a c r i m e against or inv o lv ing the

p erso n of ano t her a nd is a felo ny o f f ense. ” A c c o r d ing to Cabrera, w hether the

p red ic a te f

elo ny o ff ense “inv o lv [es] the p e rso n o f ano ther” is an essential element o f

the f irearm p ossessio n o ff

ense and is a f

ac t- sp e c if ic qu estio n t hat mu st b e d ec id ed by

the j u ry in c ases w here the p red ic ate o f f e nse is a r m ed ro bbery, su ch that the trial

c o u rt’ s instru c tio n, w hic h remo v ed that qu estio n f ro m the j u ry’ s c o nsid eratio n, w as

erro neo u s.

13W hile Cabrera o b j ec ted t o the j u ry instru c tio n d u ring the c harge c o nf erenc e,
he d id no t o b jec t t o t he instru c t i o n a t th e time t hat it was giv en. Ou r rev iew is
theref o r e limited to d etermining w hether p lain erro r o c c urred

. OCGA § 1 7

- 8- 58 (b);

Gru llo n , 31 3 Ga. at 44- 45 (2). A nd , as p rev io u sly no ted , p lain erro r requ ires a sho w ing

that the j u ry instru c t io n c o nstitu ted legal erro r that w as clear o r o b v i o u s. See S i mmo n s ,
31 4 Ga. at 889 (2). N o su c h sho w ing has been mad e here.

Cabrera has no t p o inted to any c o ntr o l ling prec e d ent ad d ressing the sp ec if ic

issu e p resented here. H o w e v er, in Tu cker v
. S ta te , 36 2 Ga. A p p
. 489 , 505- 506 (7 ) ( 86 9
SE2d 1 42) (2022), w e ad d r e ssed the meaning o f t he p hrase “ c rime

. . . inv o lv ing the

p erso n o f ano t her” in t he f irearm p o ssessio n statu te, w here the p red ic ate f elo ny

o f f ense w as c o nsp irac y to c o mmit armed ro bbery. W e c o nc lu d ed that the o f f ense o f

“ co nsp irac y to c o mmit an armed ro bbery n e c e ssar i l y ‘i n v o lv [es] the p erso n o f ano ther’

in tw o w ays, inso f

ar as it requ ires at least o ne co - c o nsp irato r and at least o ne v ic tim. ” (Emp hasis su p plied

. ) I d . at 505 (7 ).

W hat w e c onc lu d ed w as tru e f o r the c rime o f c o nsp irac y to c o mmit armed

ro bbery is also tru e f

o r the c rime o f armed ro b bery itself

. A r med r o bbery nec essarily

“ inv o lv [es] the perso n o f ano ther” bec au se ev ery armed ro bbery requ ires at least o ne

14o ther p e rso n as p art o f its c o mmissio n. See OCGA § 1 6

- 8- 41 (a) (“ A perso n c o mmits

t h e o f f ense o f armed ro bbery w hen, w ith intent to c o mmit thef t, he o r she tak e s

p ro p e rty o f

ano ther f r o m the p erso n o r t he immed iate p resenc e o f ano t her by u se o f

an o ff ensiv e weap on[. ]” ) ; D o wdell v
. S ta te , 27 8 G a
. A p p
. 1 42, 1 44 (1 ) (6 28 SE2d 226 ) (2006 ) (exp laining that “ armed ro bbery is

. . . t hef t f r o m a p e r s o n” and is a “ c rime against or inv olv ing the p e r s o n o f a no ther” u nd er the statu te f or p o ssessio n o f a
f irearm d u r ing the c o mmissio n o f a f elo ny). B ec au s e armed ro bbery is p er se a c rime

inv olv ing ano ther p erso n, the j ury need no t mak e a f ind ing o n that issu e; t he trial c o urt
theref o r e d id no t p lainly e rr by instru c ting the j ury that the c rime o f armed ro bbery is

a “c rime

. . . inv o lv ing the p erso n o f ano ther” fo r p u rp o ses o f the statu t e pro hibiting

p o ssessio n o f a f

irearm d u ring the c o mmissio n o f a f elo ny. A cc o rd S ta te v
. Nej a d , 286

Ga. 69 5, 7 00 (2) ( 6 9 0 SE2d 846 ) (201 0) (“ A f irearm p o inted at a vic tim and

reaso nably ap p earing to the assau lt v ic tim to be lo ad ed is a d ead ly w eap o n as a matter

o f law , regard less o f w hether it is lo ad ed and , u nd er su c h a circ u mstanc e, the trial

c o u rt d o es no t err w hen it t a kes th e i s s u e o f ‘ d ead liness’ fro m the j u ry [in its j u ry

c harge on aggrav ated assau lt w ith a d ead ly w eap o n]. ” ); S hi v ers v
. S ta t

e , 286 Ga. 422,

430 ( 3) ( 688 SE2d 6 2 2 ) ( 2 0 10 ) ( Na hmias, J. , c o nc u r ring sp ec ially) (exp laining that “in

15d ec id ing w hether d if f erent items c o nstitu te a ‘ d ead ly w eap o n’ f o r p u rp o se s o f the

statu te p ro hibiting aggrav a ted assau lt by u se o f a d ead ly w e ap o n,” the Su preme Co urt

o f Geo rgia has “ dec id ed that c ertain items

– su ch a s f irearms, w hether lo ad ed o r

u nlo ad ed

– alw ays qu a lif y as d ead ly w eap o n s ” and that “ b ec au se they a re p er se

w ithin the sc o p e o f the statu te, t he j u ry need no t mak e that f ind ing” ); T

ri gger v
. S ta te ,
27 5 G a. 51 2, 51 5 ( 4) ( 57 0 SE2d 323) (2002) (c o nc lu d ing that the trial c o u rt c o mmitted

no erro r w hen, in c hargi n g “ t h e j u r y o n the p o ssessio n o f a f irearm by a c onv ic ted

f elo n, the trial c o u rt c harged the j u ry that the o f f ense o f p o ssessio n o f c o c aine w ith the

intent to d istribu te, w hic h w as the p rio r f elo ny o n w hic h the p o ssessio n o f a f irearm

c harge w as based , w as a f elo ny” ), ov erru led in p art on o ther gro u nd s by W i ls o n v
. S ta te , 27 7 Ga. 1 9 5, 1 9 9 (2) (586 SE2d 6 6 9 ) (2003).

Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. Go b ei

l a n d Pi p ki n, JJ. , co n cu r
.

16