Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Clark Hyden was convicted by jury of malice murder, felony murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, and various other offenses in connection with the beating death of Tommy Crabb, Sr. On appeal, Hyden contended: the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his kidnapping conviction under the standard set forth in Garza v. Georgia, 670 SE2d 73 (2008); that the trial court erred by allowing the State to waive its initial closing argument; that Hyden was denied his right to a speedy appeal; and that Hyden’s trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hyden v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Albert and Ashley Debelbot were tried by jury and convicted of the murder of their infant daughter, McKenzy. Following the denial of their motions for new trial, the Debelbots appealed, asserting, among other claims of error that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain their convictions and that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel. In Debelbot v. Georgia, 826 SE2d 129 (2019) (“Debelbot I”), the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in part, concluding that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the convictions, although it noted that the sufficiency of the evidence was a “close question.” The Court also, however, vacated in part the denial of the motions for new trial and remanded for further consideration of the claims that the Debelbots were denied the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court again rejected the claims of ineffective assistance and denied the motions for new trial. The Debelbots appealed for a second time, and this time, the Supreme Court reversed, “[t]he Debelbots have shown a reasonable probability that, but for the failure of their lawyers to object during closing argument to the gross misstatement of the law by the prosecuting attorney, the outcome of their trial would have been different.” View "Debelbot v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Fernando Hogan appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes stemming from the shooting death of Kilon Williams and the aggravated assault of Williams’s friend, Nicholas Gibson. On appeal, Hogan contended only that the trial court erred by granting the State’s challenge to Hogan’s peremptory strikes of three prospective jurors and reseating those jurors. Upon review of the record, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded Hogan’s conviction and sentence for the aggravated assault of Gibson should have been merged, and so it vacated that conviction and sentence. Finding no other reversible error, the Court otherwise affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Hogan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Thanquarius Calhoun was convicted of felony murder and various misdemeanors in connection with the death of Marion Shore. On appeal, Calhoun argued his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. After its review of the transcribed record of proceedings, the Georgia Supreme Court found no such ineffective assistance and affirmed Calhoun’s convictions. View "Calhoun v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Frederick Johnson, Jr. was charged with murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felony first-offender probationer, both in connection with the 2016 fatal shooting of Tyrell Jordan. Johnson contended he shot Jordan in self-defense, and that the shooting was a justified use of force in defense of self under OCGA 16-3-21 (a). But because Johnson was a felony first-offender probationer generally forbidden to possess a firearm, the State argued he was categorically barred by OCGA 16-3-21 (b) (2) from claiming that the shooting was a justified use of force in defense of self. The State filed a motion in limine to bar Johnson from asserting his theory of justification at trial, and pursuant to OCGA 16-3- 24.2, Johnson moved for pretrial immunity from prosecution for murder based on the same theory. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion in limine and denied the motion for immunity, concluding as a matter of law that Johnson could not claim the shooting was a justified use of force in defense of self. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, finding that “[b]y its own terms, OCGA § 16-3-21 provides a justification defense, but only for crimes that involve ‘threatening or using force.’ It offers no defense at all for crimes that merely consist of possessing or carrying a firearm.” Here, if Johnson’s possession of a firearm at the time of the shooting was justified under the rule of law produced by the combination of OCGA sections 16-3-21 and 16-11-138, then it could not be said that Johnson was “committing . . . a felony” when he shot Jordan, and the preclusive bar of OCGA 16-3-21 (b) (2) would not apply. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it denied the motion for immunity and granted the motion in limine upon the rationale that it employed. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Nathaniel Wilkins was convicted of two counts of malice murder in connection with the shooting deaths of Forrest Ison and Alice Stevens. He appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence an alleged adoptive admission and by denying three motions for a mistrial; and (2) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting when the trial court gave an inapplicable jury instruction about accomplice corroboration and defined aggravated assault three times. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wilkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

An appeal of Marlina Hamilton’s indictment for the murder of her ex-husband Christopher Donaldson, went before the Georgia Supreme Court three times. After Hamilton was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with Donaldson’s death in 2010, the trial court granted a motion for new trial on the general grounds. The State then brought its first appeal, and the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. After the State elected to retry Hamilton, she moved for immunity from criminal prosecution based on self-defense under OCGA 16-3-24.2. In connection with that motion, Hamilton also requested that the trial court admit into evidence, for the purposes of deciding whether she was immune from prosecution, the transcripts of her jury trial and of her motion for new trial hearing. The trial court granted that request, over the State’s objection, by written order. The State appealed that order under OCGA 5-7-1 (a) (5) (A), but the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal. The trial court entered an order granting Hamilton’s motion for immunity from criminal prosecution under OCGA 16-3-24.2. The State then appealed Hamilton’s grant of immunity, arguing the trial court erred by considering Hamilton’s immunity motion before retrial; by admitting and relying on the transcripts from Hamilton’s first trial and her motion for new trial to decide Hamilton’s immunity motion; by granting Hamilton’s immunity motion; and by failing to recuse from the case. The Supreme Court held the trial court properly considered Hamilton’s immunity motion before retrial. Furthermore, the Court held that although the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the transcripts of Hamilton’s jury trial and her motion for new trial hearing under OCGA 24-8-804 (b) (1) without making any determination regarding whether the witnesses who provided the testimony in those transcripts were available for the 2019 immunity hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering and admitting that evidence under OCGA 24-8-807. And because there was evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Hamilton was justified in using deadly force to defend herself under OCGA 16-3-21, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting Hamilton immunity under OCGA 16-3-24.2. Finally, the Court held the trial court properly rejected the State’s motion to recuse. View "Georgia v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

In 2017, a jury found Damian McElrath guilty but mentally ill of the felony murder and aggravated assault of his adoptive mother, Diane, whom McElrath killed by stabbing over 50 times in a single episode. Based on the same episode, McElrath was also found not guilty of the malice murder of Diane by reason of insanity. McElrath appealed, contending among other things that the jury’s verdicts were repugnant and that his conviction for felony murder had to be reversed or vacated. McElrath also appealed the trial court’s separate order that, upon his discharge from evaluation at a state mental health facility, he should be placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections. Under the specific facts of this case, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that McElrath’s verdicts were indeed repugnant. Accordingly, the Court vacated both verdicts and remanded McElrath’s case for a new trial. The Supreme Court also vacated the trial court’s order placing McElrath in the Department of Corrections’s custody pursuant to the verdicts which now vacated. View "McElrath v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2016, a jury found Devin Sawyer guilty of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Michael Weeks, Jr. Sawyer appeals, contending that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance because counsel: (1) did not object to a witness’ purported comments on Sawyer’s credibility; (2) did not object to testimony that allegedly placed Sawyer’s character into evidence; and (3) did not object to hearsay testimony involving statements made by Weeks’ mother. Because the Georgia Supreme Court determined that Sawyer’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance to Sawyer, it affirmed his conviction. View "Sawyer v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Rickey Westbrook appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony stemming from the 2015 shooting death of Harry Wells. Westbrook contended, among other things, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence recovered from his cell phone, by denying his motion to suppress a witness’s identification of him during a photographic lineup, and by ruling that the recording of his call from jail to a friend was admissible. Concluding that Westbrook’s contentions were without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Westbrook v. Georgia" on Justia Law