Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Raven Marie Delaney was convicted of malice murder and related offenses arising from the shooting deaths of John Evans and Robert Holcomb. On the night of April 5, 2004, a number of individuals gathered with two men at a trailer, including Appellant, Josh Rood, and Lindsey Stamey. During the gathering, Appellant asked Stamey if she wanted to help “roll” (or rob) the victims; Stamey declined the offer, reported the odd request to her mother, and eventually went home. At some point, Appellant was left as the only remaining guest in the victims’ residence. LEvans and Holcomb were discovered shot dead in their trailer. Rood directed the investigators to the gun, which was determined to be the murder weapon. Appellant gave two statements to law enforcement. In the first interview, she denied knowing anything about the murders; in the second statement, however, she detailed how Rood committed the murders while she was merely outside waiting for a ride. On appeal, Appellant contended that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to object when, during its case-in-chief, the State questioned one of its witnesses about Rood “passing” a polygraph examination concerning his involvement in the murders. Appellant argued the polygraph testimony was inadmissible because it served only to bolster Rood’s trial testimony and that the testimony hampered the defense’s theory that Rood was the actual murderer. Finding no merit to this argument, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction. View "Delaney v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Jerome Atkins’s convictions for statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. Thereafter, the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and posed the following two questions: (1) whether a victim’s prior statements can constitute sufficient corroboration under OCGA 16-6-3; and (2) whether the defendant was properly prohibited under OCGA 24-4-412 from seeking testimony regarding the sexual activity that was at issue in the trial. The Court found a victim’s prior statements cannot constitute sufficient corroboration under OCGA 16-6-3. With respect to the second question, the Court determined, after a close review of the record, Atkins was “in essence, asking to conduct a fishing expedition regarding the identity of all of the victim’s sex partners, and the trial court properly did not allow him to do so.” View "Atkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Bobby Stribling, Jr. appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes arising from the fatal beating of William Thomas, Jr. Thomas was placed in a medically induced coma and on a ventilator as a result of the beating, but was taken off the ventilator when his condition failed to improve. On appeal, Stribling’s sole argument was that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, because there was evidence that Thomas might have survived had life support not been withdrawn, and thus the withdrawal of life support was the intervening and ultimate cause of Thomas’s death. The Georgia Supreme Court found the trial evidence authorized the jury to conclude that Thomas did not have a realistic chance of survival and that Stribling’s actions were the proximate cause of Thomas’s death. Therefore, it affirmed Stribling’s murder conviction, but vacated several sentences on convictions that should have merged. View "Stribling v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2004, appellant Jessie Mercer was convicted of the kidnapping of Richard Love and his wife, Parchando, as well as armed robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for kidnapping Mr. Love, but not for kidnapping Mrs. Love. Specifically, he contended that the State failed to prove the element of asportation, but the Court of Appeals rejected that. In 2011, appellant filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support either of his kidnapping convictions under the new standard for determining asportation set forth in Garza v. Georgia, 670 SE2d 73 (2008). In 2016, the habeas court denied the petition. The Georgia Supreme Court subsequently granted appellant’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and reversed the habeas court’s judgment, finding that there was insufficient evidence of asportation to support appellant's convictions for kidnapping Mr. and Mrs. Love. View "Mercer v. Johnson" on Justia Law

DayQuan Mangram was convicted of malice murder and related crimes in connection with the 2012 shooting death of Untavious Gillard. Mangram challenged the sufficiency of the evidence corroborating the testimony of a co-indictee and contended the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after the State introduced testimony about a rumor that the victim had a bounty on his head. Finding that the state "made a strong case against Mangram," and the trial court's curative instructions were sufficient to preserve Mangram's right to a fair trial, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Mangram's conviction. View "Mangram v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Damarius Thompson challenged his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Joshua Richey. Appellant represented himself on appeal, and enumerated a variety of claims. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error, and thus affirmed Thompson’s convictions. View "Thompson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Christina Menzies was found guilty by jury of felony murder, criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, and related crimes in connection with the shooting death of Menzies’s sister Jennifer during an attempted armed robbery. On appeal, Menzies contended the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, that the trial court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict at the close of the State’s case, that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial in response to a comment made by the prosecuting attorney in closing argument, and that the trial court erred in failing to exclude certain statements Menzies made while alone in an interview room at the Rockdale County Sheriff’s Office. The Georgia Supreme Court determined none of these claims had merit, and affirmed Menzies’ conviction. View "Menzies v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants Tshombe Stripling and Elijah Brewer were convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2013 shooting death of Khaseim Walton. On appeal, Stripling contended only that the trial court committed plain error by not instructing the jury on the need for accomplice testimony to be corroborated. Brewer contended the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for criminal street gang activity and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call an expert on the smartphone application AirDroid. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed both appellants’ convictions. View "Stripling v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2015, Robert Shaughnessy and Katie Patten married and conceived a child. Shaughnessy died soon thereafter. In November 2015, the widowed Patten gave birth to a baby girl, and Patten permitted Shaughnessy’s mother, Mary Jo Ardis, to visit with the baby on a couple of occasions. But those visits did not go well, and in November 2016, Ardis filed a petition pursuant to OCGA 19-7-3 (d) for court-ordered visitation with her granddaughter. In Brooks v. Parkerson, 454 SE2d 769 (1995), the Georgia Supreme Court held that the Grandparent Visitation Act of 1988 was unconstitutional to the extent that it authorized courts to award child visitation to a grandparent over the objection of fit parents and without a clear and convincing showing of harm to the child. Seventeen years later, the General Assembly enacted the Grandparent Visitation Rights Act of 2012, a provision of which authorized courts to award child visitation in some circumstances to a grandparent over the objection of a fit parent and without a clear and convincing showing of harm to the child in limited circumstances. Citing Brooks, Patten responded that subsection (d) unconstitutionally impaired a parent’s “right to raise his or her child without undue state interference,” and upon this ground, Patten moved to dismiss the petition for visitation. In May 2017, following a hearing, the trial court held that subsection (d) was constitutional, denied the motion to dismiss, and granted the petition for visitation pursuant to subsection (d), concluding that visitation with Ardis was consistent with the best interests of the girl. Patten appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with direction. The Supreme Court determined subsection (d) was unconstitutional, and the trial court erred in granting visitation pursuant to that subsection. View "Patten v. Ardis" on Justia Law

Leroy Willis was found guilty of murder, rape, and other charges arising out of the strangulation death of a victim whose body was discovered in the parking lot of a tire company where Willis had previously been employed and where he frequently slept. Willis denied having a sexual relationship with the victim, but at trial, after incriminating DNA evidence was presented to the jury, he contradicted his initial statement and explained this evidence by testifying he had a consensual sexual encounter with the victim shortly before her body was discovered. Willis admitted he had slept in the vehicle next to where the victim’s body was discovered the night prior to that discovery. Similar transaction evidence established that Willis had attacked and raped two other women at the location where the body was found, and that he had sexually attacked another woman, also in a motor vehicle, at another location. Accordingly, Willis failed to establish plain error arising from the jury instruction in question, and the Georgia Supreme Court rejected his assertion that the convictions should have been reversed. View "Willis v. Georgia" on Justia Law