Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

When this case was before the Court of Appeals, the State argued that Kemar Henry failed to make a request for additional, independent chemical testing pursuant to OCGA 40-6-392(a)(3). The Court of Appeals stated that a request for additional testing is lawfully asserted when a suspect has made some statement that “reasonably could be construed, in light of the circumstances, to be an expression of a desire for such test.” The Court of Appeals applied the “reasonably could” standard in the context of evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on counsel’s failure to object to the admission of a blood test conducted by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) where the State allegedly failed to honor Henry’s request for independent chemical testing. In its analysis, the Court of Appeals held that Henry’s statements met the “reasonably could” standard. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals set forth the proper standard for determining when a person accused of driving under the influence has invoked his or her right to additional, independent chemical testing under OCGA 40-6-392(a)(3). The Supreme Court was unpersuaded that the standard established by the Court of Appeals for making this determination was consistent with the text and context of the statute, and rejected it in favor of a “reasonably would” standard, and overruled Ladow v. Georgia, 569 SE2d 572 (2002) and all other decisions of the Court of Appeals that applied the “reasonably could” standard. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment here was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Georgia v. Henry" on Justia Law

Tyra Lane was convicted by jury of felony murder and related offenses in connection with crimes he committed against Danielle Simpson and Austin Young. Lane appealed, alleging that the trial court erred by allowing Champion to testify regarding a polygraph test, that he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel, and that the cumulative effect of these errors prejudiced him. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Lane v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dustin Steen was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in connection with the 2015 stabbing death of Edward Newhouse in an altercation outside a bar. The trial court denied Steen’s motion for new trial, and he appealed, asserting seven enumerations of error, including violation of his Georgia constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his trial by his exclusion from unrecorded bench conferences during jury selection. In addition, Steen contended the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his conviction, but the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed that part of the trial court’s judgment. The Court did not, however, address any of the remaining enumerations of error. Instead, the Court vacated the remainder of the trial court’s order denying Steen’s motion for new trial and remanded the case for the trial court to rule in the first instance on Steen’s right-to-be-present claim. View "Steen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jerome Hughs was convicted by jury of felony murder in connection with the death of Kaidence Alexander, an 18-month old child. Hughs claimed the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his conviction, that he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court erred when it gave a so-called “Allen charge” during jury deliberations. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hughs v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Antonio Harris challenged his 2011 convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Marcus Simpson and the non-fatal shootings of Kingston Ridley and Kenneth Williams. Appellant contended the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict of acquittal and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

LeMichael Tyson was convicted by jury of felony murder and cruelty to children in connection with the beating death of his girlfriend’s 22-month-old daughter, Kei’Mariona Bradley. The medical examiner concluded that Kei’Mariona’s death resulted from “significant traumatic injuries of the head,” normally seen in a car accident, a fall from a very significant height, or an assault. The evidence revealed Tyson was the last person to see the child unharmed and alive; as part of his defense, Tyson claimed that if someone hurt Kei'Mariona, it must have been Bradley. Tyson appealed his convictions, raising 11 enumerations of error. Taking each in turn, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed Tyson's convictions. View "Tyson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jimmy Parrott was convicted for, among other things, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer in violation of OCGA 40-6-395(b)(5). After his initial probationary sentence for that offense was deemed void, he was resentenced to five years in prison. Parrott appealed that resentencing, challenging the constitutionality of the sentencing provision of OCGA 40-6-395(b)(5) under the Equal Protection Clause. Parrott also contended his resentencing violated the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Parrott v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dabrentise Overstreet was convicted by jury of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Craigory Burch, Jr., the aggravated assault and armed robbery of Burch’s girlfriend, Jasmine Hendricks, and the aggravated assault of their son, C. B., a minor. On appeal, Overstreet argued: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for malice murder and violations of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act (the “Gang Act”); (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain evidence of a prior conviction and guilty plea; and (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a change of venue. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Overstreet v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jalin Collins, Percy Burdine, and Brandon Love were tried together and convicted of murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Milton Kelley. Although they raised different contentions on appeal, the co-defendants' appeals were consolidated for purposes of issuing an opinion. Burdine contended: the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; the trial court erred by denying his motion for a separate trial, by improperly modifying a pattern jury instruction, by failing to properly address a question the jury asked during deliberations, and by sentencing him based on an inconsistent verdict; and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Collins contended the trial court committed plain error by giving the jury an inapplicable instruction on the definition of “accomplice” and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Love contended the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Finding no reversible error in any case, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Collins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the grant of a petition for habeas corpus filed by Steven Bryant in connection with his 2015 conviction for aggravated sexual battery. In granting Bryant’s petition, the habeas court ruled that Bryant’s appellate counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to properly assert several instances of trial counsel ineffectiveness, failing to properly present certain claims of trial court error, and failing to pursue relief for the violation of Bryant’s right to conflict-free counsel under Garland v. Georgia, 657 SE2d 842 (2008). The Warden contended the habeas court erred, both in its substantive rulings and by granting relief on grounds not asserted by Bryant. The Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the Warden that the habeas court erred in its rulings. Accordingly, judgment was reversed. View "Emmons v. Bryant" on Justia Law