Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1999,Joe Carr was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Ernest Golden. Carr’s conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Supreme Court, but the trial court granted Carr’s extraordinary motion for new trial after his brother confessed to the murder. Soon thereafter, Carr’s brother recanted his confession, Carr was retried, and Carr again was found guilty of Golden’s murder. Carr appealed, contending that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Carr also claimed that the trial court improperly “derailed” his attempt to enter into a favorable plea agreement prior to trial. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Carr v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Ezwekwesiri Ngumezi appealed his convictions for murder, armed robbery, and related charges, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt for armed robbery and that the trial court erred by denying a request to charge on voluntary manslaughter. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ngumezi v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Sapp was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Christopher Smith. In his sole enumeration of error, Sapp claimed that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to authorize a conviction as, he alleged, he was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed Sapp’s convictions. View "Sapp v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals, in a divided full-court (15-judge) decision, certified to the Georgia Supreme Court a single question of statutory construction: whether OCGA 15-11-521 (b) required dismissal with prejudice when the State neither filed a petition alleging juvenile delinquency within the applicable 30-day period nor seeks an extension of time in which to file such petition. At the time the Court of Appeals certified its question, the Supreme Court had granted petitions for certiorari in two other cases ("M.D.H." and "D.V.H.") to address the same question. The Court held in a single opinion that “if the State fails to file a delinquency petition within the required30 days or to seek and receive an extension of that deadline, the case must be dismissed without prejudice,” and thus affirming the decision in M.D.H. and reversing the decision in D.V.H. Because the answer to the certified question submitted by the Court of Appeals in this case “may be found in the decision of this [C]ourt in [another case,] we will not again undertake to consider the question[]submitted.” View "In the Interest of J.F." on Justia Law

Appellant Kevaughn Rainwater was acquitted of malice murder, but found guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in the 2012 shooting death of Antavious Maddox. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, claiming violations of the continuing witness rule, and contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Rainwater v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2013, a grand jury indicted Yonatan Bello for sexual exploitation of children, alleging that he unlawfully possessed video recordings that depict children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Pursuant to OCGA 17-16-4 (a) (3), Bello demanded that the State produce the video recordings, as well as a written report that was prepared by law enforcement personnel in connection with a forensic examination of Bello’s personal computer. The prosecuting attorneys offered to make arrangements for the defense lawyers to inspect those materials at a secure law enforcement facility, but because the materials contained depictions of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, the prosecuting attorneys refused to provide copies of the materials to the defense. Bello continued to insist that he was entitled to copies of the video recordings and forensic report, so he filed motions to compel the State to produce copies of those materials. The trial court denied the motions, and this appeal followed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that OCGA 17-16-4(a)(3)(B) was constitutional on its face, and based on the record of this case, concluded it was constitutional as applied in this case. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motions, and the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Bello v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Trey Dinkins appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes related to the 2011 shooting death of DaJohn Milton. Appellant testified at trial. He denied shooting the victim, claiming he was at his cousin’s house at the time the shooting took place. He admitted, however, that he was at the scene of the shooting after the incident because he was getting a ride from his cousin’s house. Several witnesses confirmed appellant and another present at the shooting were together a short time afterward. Appellant made several arguments in appeal of his convictions, arguing among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's convictions. View "Dinkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Willie Green was indicted and tried for malice murder and related crimes in connection with the November 2004 stabbing death of Marita Bradshaw. At trial, Green asserted an insanity defense, which the jury rejected, finding Green guilty but mentally ill. Green appealed, contending that the trial court erred on two occasions in its response to courtroom outbursts by Green and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Eric Bolling was convicted by jury of the murder of Parviz Moledina, as well as burglary in the first degree and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. Bolling appealed, arguing that:(1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce into evidence prior trial testimony of a co-defendant; and (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to play the co-defendant’s videotaped police interview to the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bolling v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants, brothers David and Michael Naji, were convicted of murder in connection with the shooting death of Demetrius Hill. The trial court denied their amended motions for new trial, and they appealed. Both brothers argued the trial court erred in permitting the testimony of a medical examiner. Michael also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and David Naji argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible errors, the Supreme Court affirmed both brothers' convictions. View "Naji v. Georgia" on Justia Law