GEORGIA. MUSCOGEE COUNTY ‘CLERK'S OFFICE SUPERIOR COURT FILED IN OFFICE FEB 0 1 2023 Bert LeRK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) v. ) ‘SU-2022-CR-000604 CEONNA SHIKERIA TURPIN, ) EURICA DENISE TURPIN ) DEFENDANTS ) ORDER DENYING DEFENSE MOTION FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTIO! ‘UNDER 16-3-21 On January 27, 2023, this Court heard Defendants Motion for Immunity. The motion was filed by Ceonna Turpin and joined in by Defendant Eurica Turpin. At the hearing, the State was represented by Chief Assistant District Attorney Don Kelly. Defendant Ceonna Turpin was represented by Assistant Public Defender Marie Pardue. Defendant Eurica Turpin was represented by Attomey Anthony Johnson. The Defendant, Ceonna Turpin, testified for the defense. The State tendered four exhibits, all videos. All parties stipulated to the authenticity of the videos for the purpose of the hearing. The Court finds as follows: 1. To prevail at an immunity motion, The Defendant is required to establish her justification defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Sifues tate, 293 Ga. 441 (2013), 2. Under 0.C.G.A. § 16-3-21 (a) “a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only iff she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to herself or a third person or to prevent ‘the commission of a forcible felony.”3. Under 0.C.G.A. § 16-3-21 (b) a person is not justified in using force under §16-3-21(a) if he: (1) Initially provokes the use of force against herself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or (3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force. 4, ‘The Court finds that there is a question of fact as to whether Defendant Turpin was justified in using deadly force on the day of said incident or was acting out of anger or revenge or premedication, and whether pepper spray as possessed and used by Markayla Marshall in this case, was likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Justification and self-defense can be presented to the jury for their determination, 5. The Court finds that although Ceonna Turpin testified at the hearing that she was not the aggressor and fired the gun out of fear, the State introduced evidence that Ceonna and Eurica Turpin instigated the confrontation by posting a Facebook video prior to the shooting where herself and her co-defendant made derogatory comments about Markayla Marshall and Ms. Marshall’s deceased mother and said they were going to shoot and/or fight Ms. Marshall. Further, in another Facebook video posted after the shooting, Ceonna ‘Turpin boasted about having committed the shooting and killing the victim. 6. The Court finds that the State elicited testimony that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that Ceonna Turpin acted out of revenge for a perceived prior wrong. Ms. Turpin admitted that she leaned on the day of the shooting that “Reggie” had been involved in sexual relationships with herself and Ms. Marshall. The Supreme Court has previously held that the trial court may consider prior history and motives between the parties in deciding a motion for immunity from prosecution. See Sifuentes v. State, 293 Ga. 441 (2013).SUMMARY BY THE COURT AFTER HEARING THE VIDEOS AND TESTIMONY & LEGAL ARGUMENTS: The facts given were limited and since credibility of witnesses, many of which did not testify, is a jury question, the case should proceed to trial. Defendant can still raise the affirmative defense of justification and self-defense to the jury. However, a charge on immunity from prosecution cannot be given to the jury since that defense is a question of law, the jury determines the facts. This case is tragic, Defendants announced in advance they had a gun and were coming to the park to do harm to the victim. Defendants posted a long terroristic verbal attack on Facebook before the incident directed at the victim stating their anger and desire to do her harm, plus the fact she was bringing a gun with her for a confrontation on the same day at a public park. Premeditation, motives of revenge or anger, or justification are questions for the jury. Defense states the victim had pepper spray which justified the shooting as matter of law. Defendant states pepper spray is considered a “dangerous weapon” under the law. However, in the Perez case, the court held “a video showing that defendant intended to spray the victim directly in the eyes with pepper spray ‘was insufficient to establish that the spray was a “dangerous weapon”, and further stated a ‘weapon is dangerous if its use can result in serious bodily injury which the court defined “an injury involving extreme physical pain or the protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or mental facility, or requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation.”(US v. PerezS19 Fed. Appx 525) Defense cites Weaver v, State (325 Ga. App. 51), a case decided by a guilty plea, to support their argument pepper spray is a dangerous weapon whereby an individual would be justified in using deadly force against a person using same in a forceful way. However, the court pointed out “Weaver was not indicted for actually causing serious bodily injury, and since there is no allegation in the indictment that serious bodily injury in fact occurred, any argument premised on such an allegation is misplaced. Likewise, because Weaver was not indicted for using a deadly weapon, we need not address whether pepper spray is a deadly weapon.” Weaver pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for intending to do bodily harm. But the main conclusion of many cases, including Weaver, is “a specific definition of “serious bodily injury” has not been provided by statute or case law in Georgia. Whether a weapon is one likely to cause serious bodily injury is a question for the jury, which may consider 3all the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the manner in which it was used.” Georgia law is clear that a firearm is a deadly weapon as a matter of law, which Defendant admitted possessing and carried to the park to confront the victim about a text saying the victim was dating her boyfriend. A jury must decide if defendants were acting out of hatred, revenge, self-defense, or were legally justified in their actions. Most cases on the issue of justification or self-defense state those issues should be decided on a case-by-case basis afier a thorough shifting of the facts and evidence as determined by a jury. This court cannot say as a matter of law defendant was justified in firing her weapon 11 times killing the victim and wounding others. I leave those questions to the enlightened conscience of the jurors during the trial on Monday, February 6, 2023. Wherefore, the Court finds that the Defendants have not met their burden in proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the shootings of Markayla Marshall, Xikhia Thomas and Kayla Benjamin were done in defense of self or others and denies their motion for immunity from sx So ORDERED this \_ day of Fama 2023 Hon. sy G. Peters Superior Court Judge Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit prosecution,