Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Constitutional Law
Broxton v. Georgia
Appellant Joseph Broxton was convicted by jury of the malice murder of Edward Chadmon, Oliver Campbell, and Rocqwell Nelson; the aggravated assault of Deion Harden, Falana Coley, and Jordan Turner; criminal attempt to commit armed robbery; and seven counts of violation of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act (the “Street Gang Act”). Broxton’s co-defendant, appellant Daniel Luis Pena, was convicted of the malice murder of Chadmon and Nelson; the aggravated assault of Coley and Turner; criminal attempt to commit armed robbery; and five counts of violation of the Street Gang Act. On appeal, Broxton argued: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective; and (2) the trial court erred in allowing the written statement of a co-indictee to go back into the jury room. Pena contended: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on Counts 27-33; and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no reversible error in either case, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Broxton v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Georgia v. Burns
Appellee James Burns was charged with aggravated sexual battery, aggravated sodomy, and incest. The charges followed the discovery of a social-media message written by Burns’ step-daughter, K.R., detailing an alleged July 2015 sexual encounter with Burns. The message also included the following statement: “And my brother’s best friend tried to rape me.” K.R. later acknowledged that the attempted-rape statement was “made up,” and the State moved in limine to prevent Burns from mentioning it at trial. The trial court granted the State’s motion, concluding “that the probative value of the statement in question is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and is inadmissible under OCGA 24-4-403.” The trial court certified the issue for immediate review, and the Court of Appeals granted Burns’s application for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals followed Smith v. Georgia, 377 SE2d 158 (1989) to reverse the trial court, which had excluded certain evidence of prior false accusations of sexual misconduct from being presented during trial under OCGA 24-4-403. Smith held that such evidence was admissible to attack the credibility of the victim and as substantive evidence tending to prove the conduct underlying the charges did not occur. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review to reconsider Smith, and though the Court concluded Smith was wrongly decided, it affirmed the ultimate judgment of the appeals court. View "Georgia v. Burns" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
McKie v. Georgia
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this case to determine whether evidence presented at Kiron McKie's trial was legally sufficient under the new Georgia Evidence Code to support his conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. McKie was previously convicted of first-degree felony forgery. In considering all of these circumstances from the point of view of ordinarily prudent jurors, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence of McKie’s prior felony conviction was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. It was the only evidence on this point given to the jury; no alternative explanation was given for the guilty plea and accusation, other than that McKie had been convicted of a felony. Under these unusual circumstances, the Court concluded the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to support McKie’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. View "McKie v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Golson v.Georgia
Adrian Golson was tried by jury and convicted of murder in connection with the 2012 fatal shooting of Arlester Jackson, Jr. Golson appealed, claiming only that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The Georgia Supreme Court found he failed to preserve that claim for appellate review, consequently, it affirmed his conviction. View "Golson v.Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Bowman v. Georgia
Appellant Michael Bowman was convicted of malice murder and associated offenses in connection with the shooting death of Griffin Police Officer Kevin Jordan and the aggravated assault of Officer Jordan’s brother, Raymond. At trial, Bowman pursued an insanity defense. He presented evidence of his military career, which involved combat during his three tours of active duty, and he offered extensive expert testimony concerning his resulting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. The defense theory was that Bowman was in a dissociative state at the time of the shooting and merely responded in accordance with his military training to what he believed was a combat situation. In rebuttal, the State presented experts who testified that Bowman was not suffering from PTSD at the time of the incident and that Bowman’s actions were a result of his admitted longtime use of anabolic steroids; the trial court had its own experts examine Bowman and they agreed with the State’s experts. The Georgia Supreme Court determined Bowman’s arguments on appeal were without merit and affirmed his convictions. View "Bowman v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Development Authority of Cobb County v. Georgia
The Development Authority of Cobb County passed a resolution in May 2018 to issue $35 million in revenue bonds under OCGA 36-62-2 (6)(N) to finance a retail development in east Cobb County, namely, a grocery store. The Development Authority planned to lease the facility to the Kroger Company, which would relocate a nearby grocery store to the newly constructed facility. Cobb County resident Larry Savage objected to the bonds, and the Superior Court of Cobb County denied validation of the bonds, concluding that OCGA 36-62-2 (6)(N) does not authorize the bonds and that paragraph (6)(N) was unconstitutional in any event. The Development Authority and Kroger appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court found the superior court reasoned that additional employment opportunities were not enough to show that the new grocery store was “essential” to “the development of trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities.” Further, the superior court said that the additional employment opportunities at the new grocery store in any event were not the sort of “employment opportunities” with which paragraph (6) (N) was concerned. The Supreme Court determined the superior court misunderstood the statute and the controlling caselaw. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined the trial court was mistaken in thinking paragraph (6)(N) was unconstitutional. The supreme Court, therefore, reversed the superior court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Development Authority of Cobb County v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law
Blackmon v. Georgia
Appellant Danny Blackmon, Jr. was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of his wife Bobbie. Appellant argued on appeal the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain hearsay statements into evidence during his trial, and that in its order denying his motion for new trial, the court improperly relied on facts that were not in evidence. The Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to either of those claims and affirmed. View "Blackmon v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Jackson v. Georgia
Jaramus Jackson was convicted of felony murder and a firearm offense in connection with the 2015 fatal shooting of Carlos Wallace. On appeal, he argued: (1) the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to present evidence under OCGA 24-4- 404 (b) that Jackson had shot at someone else in 2005 and the trial court improperly instructed the jury on how to consider this evidence; (3) the trial court erred in failing to give various jury instructions and his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to ask for them; (4) the trial court erred by preventing the defense from cross examining accomplice witness Ronney Jackson about his 1997 arrest for murder, the State committed a Brady violation by failing to timely disclose the 1997 arrest, and trial counsel was ineffective in failing to question Ronney about the arrest and to object to the Brady violation; (5) trial counsel failed to convey the State’s proposed sentence recommendation if Jackson pled guilty; and (6) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to certain questions asked during his cross-examination. Taking each contention in turn, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error. View "Jackson v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Rowland v. Georgia
Jesse Rowland was convicted of felony murder in connection with the 2013 shooting death of Mike Whittle. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred in admitting his custodial statements, in making certain evidentiary rulings, and in charging the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rowland v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Goins v. Georgia
Charmane Goins was convicted of malice murder in connection with the strangling death of Lauren Taylor. On appeal, Goins contended, among other things: (1) the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence was sufficient, but the trial court did not make the findings and conclusions regarding Goins’ speedy trial claim required for appellate review. The Supreme Court therefore vacated in part the trial court’s order denying Goins’ motion for new trial and remanded the case for the trial court to properly address the speedy trial claim. View "Goins v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law