Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves the prosecution of Gerald Jerome Clark for the death of Mary Kilpatrick. On September 26, 2020, police discovered a burned vehicle in a DeKalb County subdivision containing Kilpatrick’s body in the trunk. Evidence showed Kilpatrick had been shot, suffered a broken jaw, and died from smoke and soot inhalation after the fire was started with an accelerant while she was still alive. Testimony from Clark’s cousin, Christopher Swope, implicated Clark as Kilpatrick’s killer, detailing Clark’s actions on the morning of her death, including shooting into the trunk and setting the car on fire. Surveillance and video evidence further corroborated Clark's involvement, and another witness, Carlton Darwin, testified to hearing a woman screaming from the trunk of Clark's car.The Superior Court of DeKalb County held a jury trial in April 2024. The jury found Clark guilty of malice murder, felony murder, arson, aggravated assault, kidnapping, criminal damage to property, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Clark was sentenced to life without parole plus additional consecutive and concurrent sentences. After the verdict, Clark filed a motion for new trial, which was denied on March 26, 2025. He then filed a timely appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia addressed two claims on appeal: first, that the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial after a witness violated sequestration and reviewed news coverage; and second, that the court improperly admitted evidence of Clark soliciting a fellow inmate to kill a State’s witness. The Supreme Court held that the mistrial issue was not preserved for review because Clark did not renew his motion after the court issued a curative instruction. The Court also held that admitting the solicitation evidence was not an abuse of discretion, finding it admissible under Georgia’s Rule 404(b). The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "CLARK v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

On the night of May 8, 2021, Zajaliq Riley and Detric Bush went to a motel to purchase marijuana from Devion Miley. During the attempted transaction, Riley and Bush, both armed, had difficulty paying Miley and drove away with him to use a nearby restaurant’s Wi-Fi. Riley, driving, stopped the car, told Miley to get out, and shot him as Miley was exiting. Miley later died from a gunshot wound to the torso. Both Riley and Bush were indicted for felony murder and related offenses, including possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.The case was tried in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, where Bush testified for the State pursuant to a plea agreement dismissing his murder charge in exchange for his testimony and a recommended sentence on lesser charges. Riley was found guilty by a jury of felony murder and related crimes and received a life sentence without parole plus a consecutive sentence for the firearm charge. Riley timely moved for a new trial, raising claims under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States regarding alleged undisclosed agreements for leniency for Bush in a separate Troup County case, and also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to impeach Bush with that pending case. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion, finding no evidence of a preexisting agreement for leniency and no prejudice from counsel’s performance.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Riley’s appeal. The Court held that there was no Brady or Giglio violation because any consideration or leniency for Bush’s Troup County charges occurred only after Riley’s trial, so there was no agreement for the State to disclose. Additionally, the Court found no prejudice from Riley’s counsel’s failure to cross-examine Bush about the Troup County case, as Bush was already thoroughly impeached regarding his plea deal in the Muscogee County case. The Court affirmed Riley’s convictions. View "RILEY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Jalen Shakur Biggs was convicted of malice murder for the shooting death of Keith Basham in Haralson County, Georgia. Biggs, his fiancée Miranda Bell, and her mother April Oubre, who was Basham’s girlfriend, traveled from South Carolina to Basham’s house to pick up Oubre and her belongings. During a heated argument at the scene, Biggs shot Basham twice, claiming he acted out of fear for himself and Oubre due to Basham’s threats and movements. Surveillance footage captured the events, showing Basham moving toward Biggs, who then fired his weapon. No weapon was found on or near Basham. Biggs later called 911 after leaving the scene and asserted the shooting was justified because Basham had assaulted Oubre earlier that day.A Haralson County grand jury indicted Biggs for multiple offenses, and after a jury trial in the Superior Court of Haralson County, he was found guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole for malice murder, vacated the felony murder count, and merged the aggravated assault conviction. Biggs filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence of Basham’s assault on Oubre under Georgia's evidentiary Rule 403. The Supreme Court concluded that the probative value of this evidence—relevant to Biggs’s justification defense—was significant and not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice or other risks. The Court vacated the trial court’s order denying Biggs’s motion for new trial and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the trial court to reconsider the admissibility and impact of the excluded evidence. View "BIGGS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of malice murder for killing his cousin at their shared home and aggravated assault for shooting a former friend less than two weeks later. Following police questioning after the second shooting, he admitted to both offenses. He was indicted on charges including malice murder, felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.At trial in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, the jury found him guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for malice murder, and imposed consecutive terms for the related firearm and aggravated assault charges. The felony murder count was vacated by operation of law, and the aggravated assault charge related to his cousin was merged into the malice murder conviction. The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed claims that the appellant’s rights were violated when he was removed from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing on his request for new counsel, and that failing to instruct the jury about his absence constituted plain error. The Court found that the appellant’s removal was justified due to persistent disruptive conduct after repeated warnings, and that he did not reclaim his right to be present or insist on virtual participation. The Court also determined that the trial court had adequately heard and considered his complaints about counsel and that no plain error occurred regarding jury instructions on his absence. Finding no cumulative error, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment. View "KERNS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In the early morning of September 4, 2019, Miguel Munoz was killed by a gunshot wound to the chest and blunt-force injuries to the head in his hotel room. Shauntae Laquana Taylor and Jessica Smith were indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Smith, who was engaged in prostitution arranged by Taylor, testified that Taylor had set up meetings with clients and kept all proceeds. On the night of the incident, Smith met Munoz for a planned sexual encounter but refused to proceed, leading to an argument over payment. Taylor entered Munoz's hotel room, struck him with a gun, and, after Smith fled, Munoz was found dead with injuries consistent with the weapon. Forensic evidence linked ammunition found in Taylor's hotel room to the shell casing at the murder scene.After Taylor’s conviction by a DeKalb County jury on all counts except those vacated or merged, the DeKalb County Superior Court sentenced her to life with the possibility of parole and consecutive sentences for other charges. Taylor filed a timely motion for a new trial, which was denied after she waived an evidentiary hearing and submitted the case on briefs. She appealed, raising a single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was transferred from the Georgia Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Taylor’s claim under the Strickland v. Washington standard. The Court found that Taylor failed to identify specific deficient actions by her trial counsel or provide adequate record citations to support her allegations. Because Taylor did not meet her burden to show deficient performance, the Court did not address the prejudice prong and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "TAYLOR v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Two men were convicted of felony murder and several related crimes following two armed robberies in LaGrange, Georgia. The first robbery occurred at a house on Saynor Circle, where victims were assaulted, bound, and their property stolen. The second robbery, at a house on Edgewood Avenue, resulted in the shooting death of Darius Tucker. The evidence at trial established that the defendants, joined by others, traveled to LaGrange with the intent to commit robberies, selected targets known to possess cash, and acted in concert. Surveillance footage, cell phone records, and testimony from accomplices and victims corroborated the sequence of events and the defendants’ involvement.After indictment in the Superior Court of Troup County, two co-defendants pleaded guilty and testified against the others. The remaining defendants were jointly tried before a jury, convicted on all counts, and sentenced to life without parole for the murder and other lengthy consecutive and concurrent sentences for the remaining offenses. Motions for new trial were denied after hearings, and timely appeals followed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the convictions. It held that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the verdicts, including proof that the defendants shared a common criminal intent and that the gunshots inflicted on Tucker caused his death. The court found no reversible error regarding the arraignment process, admission of jail calls and surveillance evidence, the presence of investigator-witnesses during trial, or the admission of cell-phone location analysis as lay testimony. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected due to lack of deficiency or prejudice. The court affirmed both convictions in full. View "SHELLS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Michael Donnell Lee was arrested shortly after the shooting death of Aaron James Grant in Atlanta, which occurred in the early morning hours of June 15, 2022. Following his arrest, Lee participated in a custodial interview at the Atlanta Police Department, during which he made incriminating statements to Detective Charles Sendling. The interrogation was recorded, and during the interview, Lee confirmed his understanding of his Miranda rights and explicitly stated that he did not wish to speak with the detective without a lawyer, effectively invoking his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent.Prior to trial, the State of Georgia filed a motion in limine in the Superior Court of Fulton County, seeking to admit Lee’s incriminating statements as evidence. The trial court denied the State’s motion, ruling that the statements were inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona, because Lee had invoked his rights and had not reinitiated communication with law enforcement before further interrogation occurred. The trial court found that Lee’s subsequent questions to the detective about the charges did not demonstrate a willingness or desire to engage in a generalized discussion about the investigation.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the trial court’s suppression ruling de novo, considering whether Lee’s conduct following his invocation of rights constituted a valid reinitiation of communication permitting further interrogation. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that Lee’s clarifying questions about the charges did not amount to reinitiation under the standards set forth in Miranda and Edwards. Furthermore, Lee’s agreement to speak to the detective was precipitated by improper interrogation rather than by his own considered deliberation. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s suppression of Lee’s statements. View "THE STATE v. LEE" on Justia Law

On May 28, 2021, Ronald Welsch was involved in the fatal shooting of Jamar Walton and Sherrod Gore outside a bar in Valdosta, Georgia. Welsch had a prior dispute with Walton over a woman and was accompanied by Kent Gillard and Shaivon Edwards. Surveillance footage, eyewitness testimony, and phone records placed Welsch at the scene. Welsch was seen leaving Gillard’s car and returning after gunshots were heard, and his phone and social media contained incriminating statements. Walton, before dying, identified Welsch as the shooter, and Welsch fled to Florida shortly after the incident.A Lowndes County grand jury indicted Welsch on seven counts, including malice murder and felony murder. Gillard, charged as a co-defendant, pleaded guilty and testified against Welsch. The Superior Court of Lowndes County held a bench trial and found Welsch guilty on all counts, sentencing him to consecutive life sentences without parole and additional prison terms. Welsch filed a motion for new trial, which was denied after a hearing in March 2025.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Welsch’s appeal, considering claims of insufficient evidence, errors in denying a new trial on general grounds, and improper admission of hearsay and Confrontation Clause violations. The court held that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the convictions, with witness testimony, surveillance, and Welsch’s own statements providing ample support. The trial court properly exercised discretion in denying the new trial. The Supreme Court also found no plain error in admitting Walton’s identification or in handling hearsay issues, as Welsch failed to show clear error or provide supporting authority. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and all related rulings. View "WELSCH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Two men were convicted of malice murder and armed robbery following the shooting death of an individual in Muscogee County, Georgia. The crime occurred in August 2018, and both were indicted in November 2020. During their joint trial in October 2022, evidence included surveillance footage, cell phone records showing extensive communication between the defendants around the time of the murder, and testimony connecting one defendant to the murder weapon through a prior uncharged shooting. Witnesses also identified one defendant by his distinctive walk in the video footage, and another admitted to being present at the scene but denied involvement in the killing. Both defendants received life sentences, with one eligible for parole and the other not, while the felony murder counts were vacated by operation of law.After sentencing, both defendants moved for new trials in the Superior Court of Muscogee County. One motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing, and the defendant appealed his conviction, raising issues including the admissibility of surveillance identification, evidence from a prior shooting, alleged prosecutorial conflict of interest, and the admission of in-life photos and victim-impact testimony. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The other defendant’s motion for new trial was granted solely on the ground that the prosecutor had previously represented him as a public defender in an unrelated case, which the trial court found to be a conflict of interest warranting disqualification.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed both appeals. It affirmed the convictions and sentences of the first defendant, finding no reversible error or ineffective assistance of counsel. For the second defendant, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the initial motion to disqualify the prosecutor, as the prior representation was not “substantially related” to the current case under Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a). The case was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining claims raised in the motion for new trial. View "FLAKES v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

On July 5, 2020, Travis Santel Graham shot and killed Jeffrey Jequez Franklin outside Graham’s home following a late-night altercation involving several individuals. The incident began when Franklin and his friends arrived at Graham’s house, seeking to join a gathering already in progress. After being asked to leave by both Graham and his housemate, a verbal argument escalated into a physical fight. During the confrontation, Graham retrieved a rifle from his car, fired a warning shot, and then fired a second shot that fatally wounded Franklin as Franklin and his friends were either fleeing or moving toward Graham.A Lowndes County grand jury indicted Graham on felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. At trial in the Superior Court of Lowndes County, the jury found Graham guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole for felony murder and a consecutive five-year term for the firearm offense, merging the aggravated assault conviction into the felony murder count. Graham filed a motion for a new trial, amended it twice, and, after two evidentiary hearings, the trial court denied the motion.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Graham’s appeal, which challenged his convictions based on claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding jury instructions and a cumulative error theory. The Court held that Graham failed to show deficient performance by counsel under the Strickland v. Washington standard, as the decisions regarding jury instructions and objections were reasonable trial strategy. The Court further held that no cumulative error applied. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. View "GRAHAM v. THE STATE" on Justia Law