Joshua Rymer v. State

── Joshua Rymer v. State ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General SECOND DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., DAVIS, J., and SENIOR JUDGE FULLER NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules June 4, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0764. RYMER v. THE STATE. DOYLE, Presiding Judge. Following a jury trial, Joshua Rymer was convicted of aggravated assault and criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of first-degree burglary. After his motion for new trial was denied, Rymer filed this appeal, in which he contends that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury with the affirmative defenses of (1) mistake of fact and (2) coercion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, see Fairwell v. State, 311 Ga. App. 834, 835(1) (717 SE2d 332) (2011) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 (1979)), the evidence presented at trial shows that on the night of February 12, 2024, Maria Santana was at home with her husband, Jesus Alfaro, and two children when Santana discovered Rymer in her garage. When Santana attempted to close the door to her garage, Rymer pushed her, entered her home, and locked the door behind him while wielding a knife. Santana testified that after Rymer entered her home, she was scared because he was yelling, following her with the knife, and moving it from side to side. Pursued by Rymer, Santana retreated upstairs, collected her younger son, who was in the hallway, took him to the room her older son was in, and locked the door. Thereafter, Santana heard Rymer screaming and trying to get into the room. Santana called Alfaro, who was in the basement in-law suite, and he called 911. Alfaro attempted but was unable to access Santana and their children because he was without his keys and Rymer had locked the door to that portion of the home. Rymer was still in the home when police arrived. On cross-examination, Rymer’s counsel elicited from Santana that after Rymer had entered the home, he told her that “somebody was coming after him.” Santana told the responding officer that Rymer “had entered into the home and was running around thinking somebody was after him.” When the responding officer made contact with Rymer, he appeared upset and claimed that “somebody was chasing after him.” 2 Further, around the time that Alfaro had called 911, Rymer also had made a 911 call.1 However, there was no evidence that anyone was actually coming after Rymer or that he had been the victim of any crime. Following Rymer’s arrest, Santana and Alfaro discovered that Rymer had caused damage to multiple items and fixtures in their home. Additionally, the day after the incident, Santana’s father found a rifle that had been discarded near some bushes on the property. This firearm belonged to Rymer’s father, with whom Rymer lived at the time, and Rymer’s father testified that he had not put it there. Rymer was indicted for two counts of first-degree burglary (Counts 1 and 2); second-degree criminal damage to property (Count 3); aggravated assault (Count 4); two counts of third-degree cruelty to children (Counts 5 and 6); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 7). At the close of evidence, the trial court directed verdicts of acquittal as to Counts 1 and 3. The jury found Rymer not guilty as to Counts 5, 6, and 7, but returned guilty verdicts as to Counts 2 and 4, finding that Rymer had committed aggravated assault and criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of first-degree burglary. Rymer filed a motion for new trial, which he amende