Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Taurean Thorpe was tried and convicted of felony murder and related offenses in connection with the June 2010 shooting death of Justin Evans. Thorpe appealed, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court committed reversible error. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thorpe v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Moises Herrera-Bustamante was convicted after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and having an open container of alcohol. About a year later, while his motion for new trial was pending, the Georgia Supreme Court decided Olevik v. Georgia, 806 SE2d 505 (2017), which held that under the compelled self-incrimination clause of the Georgia Constitution, individuals have the right to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. Herrera-Bustamante then amended his motion for new trial to argue for the first time that evidence that he refused to consent to a breathalyzer test should not have been admitted against him at his DUI trial. The trial court agreed and granted him a new trial on this ground. Because Herrera-Bustamante never raised this claim at trial and has not shown that the admission of the breathalyzer refusal evidence was plain error, the Supreme Court reversed the order granting him a new trial and remand the case for the trial court to consider the other grounds raised in the amended motion for new trial. View "Georgia v. Herrera-Bustamante" on Justia Law

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