In October 2005, appellee James Odell Hobbs was tried and convicted of crimes related to the sexual abuse of his daughter. During the trial, two witnesses testified as to appellee’s good character in the community and so appellee timely requested the pattern jury charge on good character as promulgated by the Council of Superior Court Judges.1 The trial court gave a charge on good character, but not the pattern charge requested by appellee. The Court of Appeals found that the charge given was deficient and constituted reversible error. Hobbs v. State , 299 Ga. App. 521 2 682 SE2d 697 2009. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly decided the issue. The trial court gave the following charge on good character: “Now, members of the jury, by law, good character of the accused must be proved by evidence of the accused’s reputation. When evidence of good character is admitted, you may consider it in determining whether or not you have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.” The Court of Appeals found this charge to be reversible error because “it stated that the jury ‘may ’2 consider evidence of good character, it failed to inform the jury that ‘the good character of an accused person is a substantive fact, and evidence of such good character should be 3 weighed and considered by the jury in connection with all the other evidence in the case,’ ” and it “ failed to instruct the jury that ‘good character in and of itself may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.’ ” Hobbs v. State , supra, 299 Ga. App. 521 2. For the reasons below, we affirm.
“Good character is a substantive fact at trial, and can by itself create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s guilt and lead to an acquittal.” Sapp v. State , 271 Ga. 446, 449 3 520 SE2d 462 1999 citing to Duvall v. State , 259 Ga. 801, 802 387 SE2d 880 1999. Whenever a defendant’s good character is introduced at trial and the defendant timely requests a charge on good character, the trial court must instruct the jury that it “may consider good character evidence in its deliberations.” Sapp , supra, 271 Ga. 446 3. Thus, the trial court’s use of the word “may” is not erroneous. However, when instructing on good character, the trial court is expected to tell the jury that good character is a substantive fact which may create reasonable doubt leading to an acquittal. Id. See also Kettman v. State , 257 Ga. 603 6 362 SE2d 342 1987 a charge that stated that good character was evidence of a positive fact and may itself create reasonable doubt producing an acquittal was proper; Nunally v. State , 235 Ga. 693 8 221 SE2d 547 1975 charge was proper where it “clearly instructed the jury that good character in and of itself may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused”; Phillips v. State , 171 Ga. App. 827, 829 321 SE2d 393 1984 Benham, J., concurring specially. The trial court may also instruct that, notwithstanding evidence of good character, a jury may still convict if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Morrow v. State , 166 Ga. App. 883 3 305 SE2d 626 1983.
