Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Horace Coleman and Quantez Mallory were tried jointly by jury and convicted of malice murder in connection with the beating death of Bobby Tillman. Coleman and Mallory each filed separate appeals, which were consolidated for purposes of this opinion. Coleman argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial after the prosecution elicited purportedly inadmissible testimony from a jailhouse informant. Mallory argued the trial court erred when it denied his Batson challenge during jury selection and that his due process rights were violated because he lacked access to prospective jurors’ criminal histories maintained by the Georgia Crime Information Center (“GCIC”). Both Coleman and Mallory also contended the trial court’s questioning of the State’s forensic pathologist constituted an erroneous comment on the evidence. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Coleman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Anthony Morris was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Sidon James. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred during its charge of the jury. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Morris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Kevin Johnson was convicted by jury on all eight counts of an indictment filed in connection with the death of two-year-old Melanie Haynes. Johnson contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his murder conviction and that the trial court erroneously admitted a custodial statement he made without having been advised of his Miranda rights. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was plainly sufficient to support the jury’s malice murder verdict and because the challenged statement did not require Miranda warnings. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Co-defendants Marcus Battle and Jacobey Carter appealed their convictions and sentences for malice murder and felony murder, respectively, and multiple counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the fatal shooting of Kenneth Roberts and the wounding or assault with handguns of five other men. In addition, Carter appealed his related conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Battle contended the State committed a Brady violation, that the office of the district attorney should have been disqualified in his case, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Carter’s sole challenge was that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After review of both defendants’ arguments made on appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court found the challenges to be unavailing and affirmed the convictions and sentences of both men. View "Battle v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dontavious Wilson was convicted by jury for the murder of Jack Camp, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and related crimes. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Wilson’s convictions. View "Wilson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Delroy Booth was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2007 death of Shantle Vason. Booth appealed, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) reading the indictment to a competency jury; (2) allowing the State to make improper arguments during closing statements; (3) admitting evidence of other acts to prove intent in this case; and (4) merging instead of vacating the felony murder counts. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated the merger of the felony murder counts but otherwise affirmed Booth’s convictions. View "Booth v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Desmond Daniel was convicted by jury of burglary after he was caught attempting to enter a house by removing a back door’s hinges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying Daniel’s motion for new trial. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether, in a prosecution for burglary, a defendant must present “other evidence negating any element of the crime of burglary” in order to receive a criminal trespass charge as a lesser-included offense in a burglary case. The Supreme Court answered that question in the negative: the defendant never assumes any burden to “disprove” any element of a criminal charge. But it is also true that an instruction on a lesser-included offense must be given only if the evidence warrants the instruction. The Court determined that standard was not reached here because there was no evidence at all before the jury to support Daniel’s requested for a criminal trespass charge. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Daniel v. Georgia" on Justia Law

DeSean Graham was tried by jury, and convicted for the murder of Carlos Daniels and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Graham appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred when it refused to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. After reviewing the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Graham v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2013, a grand jury indicted Appellant Brandon Davis for malice murder and felony murder predicated on aggravated assault in connection with the April 2013 stabbing death of Chassity Lester. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the State nolle prossed the malice murder count and Davis pled guilty to felony murder; he received a life sentence. Two weeks later, within the same term of court, plea counsel moved to withdraw Davis’ guilty plea alleging “manifest injustice.” At a subsequent hearing (during which Davis was still represented by the same attorney) Davis personally alleged that plea counsel was ineffective; while counsel acknowledged that this was the crux of Davis’ complaint, he also argued that Davis’ plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The trial court neither appointed new counsel after Davis raised a claim of ineffective assistance nor received evidence on the claim. Nevertheless, the trial court made a verbal ruling that there was no evidence to support Davis’ allegation of ineffective assistance and, later, entered an order summarily denying Davis’ motion. Davis appealed, reasserting his ineffectiveness claim. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the earliest practicable moment Davis could have properly raised a claim of ineffectiveness was with new counsel on appeal. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling with respect to that claim, and remanded the case for the trial court to hold a hearing on Davis’ ineffectiveness claim with new counsel. View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Clayton County appealed the trial court’s order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the motion for partial summary judgment filed by the City ofCollege Park. This dispute arose over the taxation of alcoholic beverages at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Of the many businesses located within the Airport, some are located in the unincorporated sections of the County while other businesses are located in the County within the incorporated limits of the City of College Park (the “City”). In its complaint, the City contended that since the 1983 enactment of OCGA section 3-8-1 (regulation and taxation of alcoholic beverages at public airports), it has not been receiving the proper amount of alcoholic beverage taxes to which it was entitled, and that the County improperly infringed on its authority to tax by instructing vendors to remit to the County 50% of the taxes due from the sale of alcohol in those portions of the Airport located within the City limits. The City and County disagree on the interpretation of OCGA 3-8-1(e). In seeking a judgment on the pleadings, Clayton County asserted, among other things, that the City of College Park’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity. The matter of sovereign immunity was not briefed by the parties, and the trial court did not consider it. To permit a more thorough consideration of this question, the Mississippi Supreme Court remanded for the trial court to address it, with the benefit of full briefing. View "Clayton County v. City of College Park" on Justia Law