Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Antonio Griffin appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes related to the 2015 shooting death of Mikell Wright and attempted robbery of Mikell’s brother, Rodregus Wright. On appeal, Griffin, who was 13 years old at the time of the crimes, argued primarily that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to object to testimony about tape-recorded conversations between Griffin and a friend who was also a minor. Because the argument that the testimony was inadmissible "at best is novel," the Georgia Supreme Court determined Griffin could not show that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to raise it. Griffin’s only other argument on appeal was an argument about jury selection that the Supreme Court rejected last year in affirming the convictions of his co-defendant, Tobias Daniels. The Court therefore affirmed. View "Griffin v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Melvin Brown, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the 2014 fatal shooting of Javious Tucker and wounding of Cyntrelis Boggs. Brown appealed, claiming that the trial court plainly erred in its jury charge on his justification defense and when it admitted in-life photographs of Tucker and allowed Tucker’s mother to testify about those photographs. Brown also contended he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The trial court summarily denied appellant Marcus Rutledge’s pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal from his murder conviction, which was entered on his guilty plea; in the motion, Rutledge also requested a copy of his case file and transcripts. Because the trial court did not hold a hearing to determine whether Rutledge’s failure to file a timely appeal was due to the ineffective assistance of his plea counsel, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated the part of the court’s order denying the motion for an out-of-time appeal and remanded for such a hearing. Because Rutledge’s request for a free copy of his case records did not satisfy the standard for such a request made after the deadline for a timely appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of that part of his motion. View "Rutledge v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Herminio Reyes was found guilty by jury of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the stabbing death of Sadot Ozuna-Carmona. He appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the malice murder count; (2) the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence pursuant to the “residual” exception to the hearsay rule; and (3) that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in several regards. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Reyes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

James McDowell was convicted by jury for the 2002 shooting death of Eric Kemp. In his sole enumeration of error, McDowell contended that, due to the destruction of the .40-caliber handgun prior to trial, the State could not prove an appropriate chain of custody for the handgun at trial, and the trial court erred by allowing the admission of evidence of that handgun. The Georgia Supreme Court found that the relevant portion of the record on appeal revealed that, when the handgun at issue was initially recovered from the car in which McDowell was a passenger, the serial number engraved on the gun was documented by police in the incident report. The gun was later transported to the GBI for ballistics testing, and, again, the serial number of the gun was recorded by the GBI. At some point towards the end of 2012, the gun was inadvertently destroyed, and, though it had been made available to the defense prior to destruction, it was not available at the time of the trial. The Court found only evidence relating to the handgun was admitted at trial, not the handgun itself. "So, McDowell’s argument, which is based on proving the chain of custody of the handgun, is generally misplaced. And, even if we assume without deciding that McDowell’s chain of custody argument could somehow apply to the evidence concerning the handgun which was admitted at trial, as opposed to the handgun itself, McDowell’s argument would still fail." Judgement was affirmed. View "McDowell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Linda Agee was tried by jury and convicted of murder in connection with the fatal shooting of her husband, Randall Peters. Agee appealed, contending the trial court erred when it admitted certain hearsay statements of a deceased witness and determined that Agee had forfeited her constitutional right to confront that witness. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, finding the trial court erred in ruling the deceased-witness' statements to law enforcement were admissible. An error of “constitutional magnitude,” such as the one in this case, will not warrant a reversal “if the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” The witness' statements, especially statements that he would receive life imprisonment or the death penalty if he told the truth, were highly incriminating. "They were essentially an implicit admission of guilt, providing the most direct evidence that Sargent was involved in Peters’s murder. These statements also cast a large shadow of suspicion over Agee, given her close association with Sargent at the time of the killing and their eventual marriage. Indeed, in its closing argument, the prosecution heavily emphasized Sargent’s statements about his receiving life in prison or the death penalty if he told police what he knew about the murder." At the same time, the other evidence against Agee was entirely circumstantial and not particularly strong. No evidence definitively identified Agee or anyone else as the shooter. "While a reasonable juror might conclude that certain statements and conduct of Agee suggested that she was somehow involved in Peters’s murder, the nature and extent of her involvement are far from clear. Thus, it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of Sargent’s statements did not contribute to the verdict." View "Agee v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joseph Thomas was convicted by jury of murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Gregory Savelio. In his sole claim of error, Thomas contended the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge to the State’s use of its peremptory strikes to remove African-Americans from the jury pool. Specifically, Thomas contended the trial court failed to properly scrutinize whether the prosecutor’s facially race-neutral reasons for striking Jurors 18, 31, and 42 were pretextual. He argued the trial court’s failure to apply Batson’s three-step analysis resulted in the court improperly shifting the burden to the defense to prove the prosecutor’s discriminatory intent. The Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to this claim of error; therefore, it affirmed. View "Thomas v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2003, appellant Brandon Cross was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Debra Hymer, who was the mother of his girlfriend, Jessica Cates. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred by declining to allow him to impeach the hearsay statements of his co-conspirator Cates, by failing to charge the jury as to the burden of proof for co-conspirator statements, and by admitting three autopsy photographs and a video recording of the crime scene. He also argued that he should have been granted a new trial because the record was insufficiently complete. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cross v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Ulysses Blackshear, Jr. was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of William Land. On appeal, Blackshear challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to each offense of which he was found guilty and sentenced. Blackshear also argued the trial court erred by failing to apply the proper standard in considering his motion for new trial on the general grounds and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by not objecting to the admission of certain photographs from Land’s autopsy. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Blackshear v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rodney Carter Clark was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Mario Johnson. On appeal, Clark contended only that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Finding that the evidence presented at Clark’s trial was legally sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than Clark’s guilt, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Clark's convictions. View "Clark v. Georgia" on Justia Law