Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Robert Olsen was formerly a police officer who was indicted for felony murder and other charges related to the shooting death of an unarmed suspect. The shooting occurred when Olsen responded to a suspicious person report at an apartment complex and ultimately shot the individual who was the subject of the report. Olsen claimed he acted in self-defense, and moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that unauthorized persons were present in the grand jury room during the prosecutor’s presentation of evidence. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied this motion in a detailed order setting forth the circumstances of the evidentiary proceedings before the grand jury and the applicable law, and then granted a certificate of immediate review. The Georgia Supreme Court granted appellant’s request for interlocutory appeal to address: (1) whether the presence of witnesses, non-lawyer and lawyer spectators during the presentation of evidence to the grand jury during the proceedings leading to the defendant’s indictment in this case violated the recognized need for grand jury secrecy and compromised the grand jury’s independence from outside influence; and (2) whether the defendant was prejudiced by the presence of these individuals such that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss his indictment. After reviewing the record and considering the parties’ arguments, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Olsen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury found appellant Delron Glenn guilty of malice murder in connection with the shooting death of John Tanner. Glenn appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to prevent lay witness identification testimony; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the search of his sister’s apartment because the magistrate judge lacked probable cause to issue the search warrant; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a cell phone seized during that search, and; (4) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to identify and redact references to Glenn’s gang affiliation that were contained in a co-defendant’s video-taped statement which was played for the jury. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Glenn v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This case calls for the Georgia Supreme Court to decide whether Georgia’s state constitutional protection prohibited law enforcement from compelling a person suspected of DUI to blow their deep lung air into a breathalyzer. “A nearly unbroken line of precedent dating back to 1879 leads us to conclude that it does, although the appellant here still loses because the language of the implied consent notice statute he challenges is not per se coercive.” Frederick Olevik was convicted of DUI less safe, failure to maintain a lane, and no brake lights. Olevik appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a state-administered breath test on the grounds that the implied consent notice statute, OCGA 40-5-67.1 (b), was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. Olevik argued: (1) that his right against compelled self-incrimination was implicated when law enforcement asked him to expel deep lung air into a breathalyzer; (2) that the materially misleading language of the implied consent notice was coercive per se and in fact did compel him to perform this act; thus (3) the admission of his breath test results violated his right against compelled self-incrimination under the Georgia Constitution and his due process rights. The Supreme Court agreed with Olevik that submitting to a breath test implicates a person’s right against compelled self-incrimination under the Georgia Constitution, and it overruled prior decisions that held otherwise. The Court nevertheless rejected Olevik’s facial challenges to the implied consent notice statute, because the language of that notice was not per se coercive. View "Olevik v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Demetrius McNeal was tried by jury and found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, criminal attempt to commit robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by first offender probationer. The charges stemmed from the 2010 shooting death of William Callison and the attempted robbery of David Reid. McNeal appealed, arguing the trial court erred in commenting on the evidence and in refusing to give his requested jury instruction on accident. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "McNeal v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Andray Faust appealed his convictions for felony murder while in the commission of an aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2006 fatal shooting of Marcellous Brown. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, an evidentiary ruling, aspects of the trial court’s instructions to the jury, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Faust v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant D’Andre Carter was convicted of malice murder and associated crimes in connection with the 2013 shooting death of Dequavious Reed. On appeal, Carter argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted a portion of a recorded conversation which captured the statements of a third party who did not testify at trial; and (3) the trial court erroneously admitted a recording of a jailhouse telephone call made by Carter. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Carter v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Luther Smith, Jr. was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the February 2007 death of fifteen-month-old Deandra Turner. Smith appealed, arguing the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony. Because the evidence was sufficient to enable a jury to determine that Smith was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted, and because the testimony in question was admissible, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury found Craig Johnson guilty of malice murder and other crimes related to the 2008 stabbing death of Nicole Judge. All of the original verbatim trial transcript materials were later destroyed in a fire at the court reporter’s house. The State ultimately provided Johnson with a 14-page, double-spaced document purported to be a complete narrative recreation of the trial transcript. As part of its review, the Georgia Supreme Court reviewed the narrative at issue and found the recreated transcript was not sufficiently detailed to allow Johnson a fair opportunity to appeal or to allow meaningful appellate review. The Court therefore reversed the trial court’s denial of Johnson’s motion for new trial and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

David Freeman was found guilty by jury on one count of disorderly conduct, pursuant to OCGA 16-11-39(a)(1). Freeman attended a church service, whereby instead of praying for teachers and students for a successful start to the school year, Freeman raised his middle finger in the air and stared angrily at the pastor. The pastor testified that he felt afraid for his own safety. As people left the sanctuary, Freeman began yelling about sending children off to the evil public schools and having them raised by Satan. As Freeman yelled, the music minister at the church turned up the music in an effort to drown him out, and Freeman then left the sanctuary. Freeman was later sentenced to twelve months of probation and ordered to pay a $270 fine. On appeal, Freeman contended the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and his conviction, therefore, should not stand. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed Freeman’s conviction, but for different reasons. The Court found Freeman raised his middle finger as a form of protest, and there is no evidence that Freeman engaged in additional threatening conduct that would have elevated his raised middle finger to the level of conveying “fighting words” or a “true threat.” The evidence reveals that he stared angrily at the pastor, but did nothing more while he raised his middle finger in silence from the back of the church. This would not rise to the level of “fighting words” or a “true threat” as a matter of law. View "Freeman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Mark Taylor appealed his convictions related to the 2012 death of Charles Weaver. Appellant entered the parking lot of a car dealership and saw a truck that had its engine running and the lights on. Seeing no one in the car, appellant jumped in and threw the vehicle in reverse. Weaver worked at the dealership, and tried to stop appellant from stealing the vehicle. Weaver started dialing the police on his cell phone, but appellant got out of the truck, pulled a gun and forced Weaver to stop the call. Appellant forced Weaver to walk towards the building, then shot him. The victim attempted to run away and hide inside the building, but appellant followed him and shot him a second time. Appellant then fled in the truck, taking the victim’s cell phone and pocket knife with him. A significant portion of appellant’s encounter with the victim was caught on the dealership’s video surveillance system. The victim was found deceased by a coworker. The medical examiner testified the victim died from a bullet that entered and exited his arm and then re-entered his body through his chest, damaging his lungs and a major artery to his heart such that he bled to death. Police tracked the stolen vehicle to an apartment complex in Atlanta, used the apartment’s surveillance system to link appellant to the truck, and found appellant in an apartment with some of his relatives. As appellant was arrested, he admitted to the shooting. Nevertheless, appellant alleged the evidence presented against him was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and that errors at trial warranted a new trial. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s convictions. View "Taylor v. Georgia" on Justia Law