In June 2008 appellant Brandon Mullins was indicted for murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Rafael Watson. He filed a pre-trial motion for immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2 claiming self-defense and defense of others. The trial court denied the motion, and this Court granted Mullins’ application for interlocutory appeal. See Crane v. State , 281 Ga. 635 641 SE2d 795 2007. Finding no error in the trial court’s ruling, we affirm. 1. Mullins contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2. That statute provides that a person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21 . . . shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title. OCGA § 16-3-21 a in turn provides, in part, that
a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Thus, in order to be entitled to immunity from prosecution Mullins bore the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a reasonable belief that shooting the victim was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or the others present. See Bunn v. State , 284 Ga. 410, 413 3 667 SE2d 605 2008. The trial court properly held a pre-trial hearing, Fair v. State , 284 Ga. 165, 166 1 664 SE2d 227 2008 and considered live testimony. Compare Blazer v. State , 266 Ga. App. 743, 745 1 598 SE2d 338 2004 trial court made pre-trial ruling based on affidavits. On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, and we accept the trial court’s findings with regard to questions of fact and credibility if there any evidence to support them. See State v. Yapo , 296 Ga. App. 158, 160 674 SE2d 44 2009.
