SECOND DI VI SI ON M I LLER, P. J. , M A RKLE and LA ND, 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 13, 2024



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

A 24A 0 27 2. RUTLED GE v

. TH E STA TE.
M A R K L E , J u d ge. Fo llo w ing a j ury trial, Ty Ru tled ge w as c onv ic ted o f simp le battery. H e ap p eals
f ro m the trial c o u rt’ s d enial o f his mo tio n f or new trial, c o ntend ing that the t r ial c o urt erred by d enying his mo tio n f o r immu nity u nd e r OCGA § 16

- 3- 24. 2. Find ing no erro r,

w e af firm.

“ When rev iew ing the d e nial o f an immu nity m o t io n, an ap p ellate c o u r t mu st

v iew the e v id enc e in t he light mo st fav o r able to the t r ial c o u rt’ s ru ling, and ac c ep t the
trial c o u rt’ s find ings o f f

a c t and c red ibility d eterminatio ns if there is any ev id enc e to

su p p o rt them. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Jen n in gs v. S t a te , 36 3 Ga. A p p . 1 7 0 , 1 7 6 (2) (86 9 SE2d 9 3) (2022).So v ie w ed , the rec o rd sho w s that R utled ge w as c harged w ith simp le battery

f o llo w ing an alterc atio n w ith his grand d au ghter’ s bo y f riend

. 1 Ru tled ge f

iled a mo tio n f o r immu nity p u rsu a nt to OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 24. 2, c laiming he w as j u stif ied in the u se o f
f o rc e to def

end his ho me u nd er OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 23 and his p ro p erty u nd er OCGA § 1 6

-
3- 24. The ev id e nc e presented at the su bsequ ent p re- trial hearing s ho w ed that, at the
time o f the inc id ent, Ru tled g e ’ s 1 8

- y e ar- o ld grand d au ghter, T. R. , was liv ing in the
ho me shared by R utled ge and T. R. ’ s au nt. T. R. testif ied that she had t old Ru tled ge and her au nt t hat she had d ec id ed to mo v e in w ith her u nc le, and she began p ac k ing.
She inv ited her b o y f

r i e n d and ano ther male onto the pro p erty t o help c arry her
belo ngings to her u nc le’ s c ar, w hic h w as p ark ed o n the ro ad abo v e. She stated that she
lef t her belo ngings o n the p orc h o r o n the grass ou tsid e the ho m e, and t hat she d id no t

see either man enter the ho me. A s sh e w a s h and ing o f f a bu nd le o f c lo thes to her
bo y f riend ; Ru tled ge c ame o u tsid e and to ld her bo yf riend to get o f

f the p r o p erty. H e then slap p e d her bo yf

riend in the f

ac e, at w hic h p o int, her bo yf riend ran bac k to the

1 Ru t led ge w as ac qu itted o f a related c harge f

o r f alsely rep o rting a c rime.

2c ar. T

. R. f

u rther r ec o u nted that her bo y f riend had no t ac ted aggressiv ely to w ard her grand f a ther.
The au nt testif

ied that s he and R utled ge w ere startled w hen they saw tw o men

r ap id ly ap p ro ac hing the ho u se. She yelled at them to get o ff the p ro p erty mu ltip l e times. She ad mitted that T. R

. had t o ld her a nd Ru t led ge she w as mo v ing o u t, and that
her f riend s w ere help ing her. She also testif ied that the bo yf

r iend had t ried t o e nter the
ho u se and sho v ed Ru tled ge w ith his sho u ld er w hen trying to mo v e p ast him. She d id

no t see Ru tled ge slap the b oyf r i end , bu t she had seen the bo y f riend ru n o f

f the
p ro p e rty, sho u ting that Ru tled ge had hit him.
Ru tled ge d id no t testif y at the hearing. H e and the St a te p layed

c o ntemp oraneo us v id eo rec o r d ings, bu t they d o no t sho w the alterc atio n at issu e. T he trial c o u rt d enied the mo tio n f or immu nity, find ing that t he ev id enc e r a i s e d

a qu estio n of f

ac t f or the j u ry. 2 A j u ry u ltimately c o nv ic ted Ru tled ge o f simp le battery. 3

2 W e are no t p ersu ad ed b y Ru t led ge’ s co ntentio n that the tr i a l c o u r t imp ermissibly c onf

lated its d uty to d etermine t he issu e o f immu nity w ith the j u ry’ s d u ty to d etermine w hether a j u stif ic atio n d ef

ense is su c c essf

u l. See Pa te v . S ta te , 36 4 Ga. A p p . 1 0 7 , 1 08 (2) (87 4 SE2d 1 32) (2022) (Trial c o u rts d etermine w hether a d ef end ant is entitled to immu nity p rio r to trial; ho w ev er, a d ef end ant’ s j u stif

ic atio n d ef ense is lef t to a ju ry to d ec i d e, and t he State bears the b u rd en o f d isp ro v ing the d ef ense beyo nd a r easo nable d o u bt. ). The transc rip t ref lec ts t hat the trial c o urt p ro no u nc ed its d ec isio n that imm u nity w a s no t w arranted in this c a se, and f u rther
3H e f

iled a mo tio n f

o r new t rial, c hallenging t he trial c o u rt’ s d ec isio n o n his immu nity

m o t i o n. Fo llo w ing a hearing, the trial c o u rt d enied the mo tio n, and this ap p e a l
f o llo w ed

. I n a single enu m e ratio n o f erro r, R utled ge c laims the t rial c o u rt erred by
d enying his mo t io n f

o r immu nity u nd er OCGA §§ 1 6

- 3- 23; 1 6

- 3- 23. 1 ; 1 6

- 3- 24; and 1 6

-
3- 24. 2. H av ing rev i e w e d t h e transc rip ts of the p retrial hearing and the v id eo

rec o rd ings, w e c onc lu de the trial c o urt d id no t err. 4

instru c ted that it w o u ld no t “ p rev ent [ R u tl e d g e] fro m raising a def ense o f j u stif ic a tio n” at trial. A s su c h, the trial c o u rt c o rrec tly c o nstru ed the ap p lic able law , and Ru tled ge misc harac teriz e s its ru ling in his ap p ellate brief

.
3 Ru t led ge renew ed his mo tio n f o r immu nity af

ter the c lo se o f ev id enc e, and the trial c o u rt again d enied it.

4 I n his ap p ellate brief

s, Ru tled ge imp r o p erly r ef erenc e s trial testimo ny, w hic h
w e d o no t c o nsid er in d ec id ing the issu e o n ap p eal. See S i fu en tes v . S ta t

e , 29 3 Ga. 441 , 444 (2), n. 3 (7 46 SE2d 1 27 ) ( 201 3) (rev iew ing the transc rip t f r o m the mo tio n hearing, and n o t i n g , “ the c o u rt’ s ru ling [o n a d ef end ant’ s immu nity mo tio n] mu st be based so lely o n the ev id enc e presented at a p retrial hearing” )

. H o w ev er, in rev iew ing a trial c o u rt’ s d enial o f a mo tio n fo r immu nity, “ w e may c o nsid er f ac ts that d ef

initiv ely can be asc e rtained exc lu siv ely b y ref erenc e to e v i d e n ce t h a t i s u n co n t r a d i cted and p resents no qu es t i o n s o f cred ibility, su c h a s f ac ts ind isp u tably d isc ernible f ro m a v id e o t ap e. ” (Citatio n and p unc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Allen v . S ta t e , 31 7 G a. 1 , 5 (1 ) (89 0 SE2d 7 00) (2023). H ere, the relev ant rec o r d ings w ere c o nsistent with t he trial c o u rt’ s c o nc lu sio n.
4OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 23 p ro vid es that “ [a] p erso n is j u stif ied in threatening o r u sing
f o rc e against ano ther w hen and to t he extent t h a t he o r she reaso nably believ es that

su c h threat o r f

o rc e is nec essary to p rev ent o r terminate s u c h other’ s u nlaw f u l entry into

. . . a habitatio n. ” 5 Similarly, OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 2 4 p r o v id e s, in pertinent part, that

“ [ a] p erso n is j u stif

ied in threatening or u sing f orc e against ano ther when and to the

extent that he reaso nably believ es t hat su c h threat o r f o rc e is nec essary to p rev ent o r terminate su c h o ther’ s tresp ass o n or o ther to rtio us o r c riminal interf e renc e w ith real
p ro p e rty o ther than a habitatio n” that is law f u lly w ithin h i s o r a n immed iate f amily

m e mber’ s p o ssessio n. OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 23. 1 p ro v id e s that a p erso n ju stif ied in u s i n g f o rc e u nd er certain C o d e se c t io ns, inc lu d ing the tw o mentio ned abo v e, has no d u ty

to retreat, bu t may stand his gro u n d

. An d , OCGA § 1 6

- 3- 24. 2 au tho r iz e s t he immu nity
f r o m p ro sec u tio n o f a ny p erso n w ho u s es f o rc e in ac c o rd anc e w ith the abo v e t h r e e Co d e sec tio ns. A def

end ant c laiming immu nity u nd er these statu t es bears the bu rd en

o f p ro o f by a p rep ond eranc e of the ev id enc e. Pa te v . S ta t e , 36 4 Ga. A p p . 1 07 , 1 08 (2) (87 4 SE2d 1 32) (2022).

5 OCGA § 16

- 3- 24. 1 d ef

ines “ habitatio n” as “ any d welling, mo to r v ehic le, o r p lac e o f bu siness. ”
5Ru tled g e ’ s argu ments c enter o n whether T. R

. w as au tho riz ed t o inv ite her

bo y f rien d o n to the pro p erty a nd , thu s, w hether t he bo yf riend was t r esp assing. B u t,

ev en assu ming that the bo yf riend w as tresp a s sing, R utled ge f ailed to m eet his bu rd en

to s ho w he reaso nably b eliev ed f o rc e w as nec e s sary to p ro tec t his ho me and p ro p e r ty. See O C G A § § 1 6- 3- 23; 1 6

- 3- 24. A s rec o u nted abo v e, T. R. ’ s testimo ny d irec tly

c o nf lic ted w ith her a u n t ’ s. A nd , in d enying immu nity, t he t r ial c o u rt imp lied ly

c red ited T. R. ’ s t estimo ny that her bo yf riend w as no t ac ting aggressiv ely, bu t instead
had his hand s f

u ll w ith her c lo thes, when Ru tled ge stru c k him. See Bla z e r v. Sta te , 26 6
Ga. A p p . 7 43, 744, 745 (2) (59 8 SE2d 338) (2004) (af f irming trial c ou rt’ s d enial o f an immu nity mo tio n w here there w as c o nf lic tin g e v id enc e o f a battery, no ting: “ The
d if f erenc es betw een the tw o v ersio ns are c ritic al. ” ); P a te , 36 4 Ga. A p p . at 1 08 (2), 1 1 1 (3) ( W e d ef

er to the t r ial c o u rt’ s c r ed ibility d eterminatio ns o n a mo tio n f o r immu nity. ).

6There w as thu s so me ev id enc e that Ru tled ge w as no t j u stif ied in u sing f

o rc e in
this instanc e, and w e af

f i r m the trial c ou rt’ s d enial o f the m o t io n f or immu nity. See
Pa te , 36 4 Ga. A p p . a t 1 1 1 (3); Jen n in gs , 36 3 Ga. A p p . a t 1 7 6 (2); Bla z er , 26 6 Ga. A p p . at 7 45 (2).

Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. Mi ller, P. J. , a n d La n d, J. , co n cu r .

7