Peavy v. State

── Peavy v. State ── Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia No. S26A0455 Ja’Mychael Quintrez Peavy v. The State On Appeal from the Superior Court of Forsyth County No. 23CR-0356-2 Decided: May 5, 2026 BETHEL, Justice. Ja’Mychael Quintrez Peavy was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of his coworker Hamilton Darwin following a workplace dispute. 1 On appeal, Peavy argues that: (1) the verdict form and related jury instructions violated Edge v. State, 261 Ga. 865 (1992), and its progeny and were misleading; (2) the trial court erred in 1 The crimes occurred on May 17, 2023. On July 10, 2023, a Forsyth County grand jury indicted Peavy for malice murder (Count 1), felony murder (Count 2), aggravated assault (Count 3), and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Counts 4 and 5). At a jury trial in March 2025, Peavy was found not guilty on Counts 1 and 5 but guilty on the remaining counts. The trial court sentenced Peavy to serve life in prison on Count 2 and five years consecutive on Count 4. Count 3 merged into Count 2. Peavy filed a timely motion for new trial on March 18, 2025, which he amended twice. Peavy waived a hearing on the motion, and the trial court entered an order denying the motion, as amended on September 9, 2025. Peavy then filed a timely notice of appeal, and his case was docketed to the term of this Court beginning in December 2025 and submitted for a decision on the briefs. excluding proffered defense testimony; and (3) the “guilty” verdicts for felony murder and aggravated assault were repugnant when considered in light of the “not guilty” verdict for possession of a firearm during the commission of an aggravated assault. For the reasons that follow, Peavy’s claims fail, so we affirm. 1. The evidence admitted at trial showed the following. On the morning of May 17, 2023, shortly after Peavy arrived at work, he confronted Darwin, his coworker, about his concern that Darwin was speaking poorly of him to their manager. During the course of that confrontation, which began as a verbal argument, Darwin punched Peavy. Peavy fell, got up, and began walking to his car. Darwin followed, yelling to Peavy, “F**k, n***er, you ain’t going to get that gun.” One of Peavy’s coworkers grabbed Darwin and tried to keep him from pursuing Peavy. Darwin broke away and followed Peavy toward Peavy’s car. Once Peavy reached his car, Darwin began moving away from Peavy. Peavy then grabbed a gun from his car and, in view of several coworkers, fired it at Darwin multiple times. Darwin, who was also armed, then returned fire, striking Peavy in the abdomen. When the shooting stopped, Peavy entered his workplace and dropped his gun on the floor, which was secured by the manager until police arrived. Peavy told his manager that he had shot Darwin. Darwin s