Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Omari Smith was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of T’Shanerka Smith (no relation). On appeal, Smith contended the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a separate trial; that trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to the court’s jury charge on conflicts in testimony; and that the trial court erred in denying Smith’s motion for a continuance of the hearing on his motion for new trial. The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and therefore affirmed Smith’s convictions. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After a 2009 jury trial, Damon Bamberg and his mother, Sonya Bamberg, were convicted of murder and other offenses arising out of the shooting death of Damon’s ex-wife, Allison Nicole “Nikki” Bamberg. They appealed, claiming error in the reconstruction of a missing transcript of the first day of trial and in the denial of their motions to reopen the evidence to submit a transcript of a “true crime” television show. In addition, Damon claimed the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and the admission of a statement made by Sonya was made in error. Sonya claimed the trial court impermissibly commented on the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "Bamberg v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Matthew Ragsdale filed this personal injury action against the Georgia Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) after he was injured during an October 31, 2014 motor vehicle accident that occurred when Ross Singleton, the driver of another vehicle, fled from law enforcement. Ragsdale sent an ante litem notice to the Department of Administrative Services (“DOAS”) on December 3, 2014. The notice provided on that date failed to include all the information required by OCGA 50-21-26 (a) (5). Ragsdale filed suit, but dismissed this initial filing based on the deficiency of his first ante litem notice. Thereafter, in March 2017, Ragsdale sent a second ante litem notice to DOAS. Ragsdale then renewed the action, and [DPS] filed its motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that the March 2017 ante litem notice was untimely. In response, Ragsdale argued that because he was the victim of Singleton’s crime, the time for filing the ante litem notice had been tolled “from the date of the commission of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action in tort until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated” pursuant to OCGA 9-3-99. The trial court agreed and denied the motion to dismiss in a single-sentence order, citing Ragsdale's arguments in response to the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of DPS’s motion to dismiss, following cases in which that court had previously “determined that limitation period tolling statutes apply to the period for filing ante litem notice as well as for filing suit.” The Georgia Supreme Court found the Georgia Tort Claims Act's ante litem notice period was not subject to tolling under OCGA 9-3-99. View "Dept. of Public Safety v. Ragsdale" on Justia Law

Sylvester Richardson was convicted by jury of murder and other crimes relating to the fatal shooting of Christopher Wilson. He appealed, claiming that the trial court erred when it denied a motion for a mistrial and when it admitted evidence that he was involved in a gang. Richardson also contended he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Richardson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Antonio Taylor was convicted by jury of murder and other crimes in connection with the stabbing death of Araminta Elly. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred when it admitted certain hearsay testimony and when it denied his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecution’s alleged use of his pre-arrest silence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Taylor v. Georgia" on Justia Law

LaParrish London was convicted by jury of the malice murder of Eric Terrell. On appeal, he argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial; (3) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay; and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective. Upon review, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed London’s conviction. View "London v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michael Naples was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the death of 17-month-old Kaylee Johnson. Investigation revealed the child died from inoperable brain swelling from either having her head slammed against a hard object or having been thrown down a flight of stairs. Naples appealed, contending that the trial court erred when it admitted “other acts” evidence under OCGA 24-4-404 (b) (“Rule 404 (b)”) and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Naples v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Otheron Walker was convicted by jury of malice murder in connection with the beating death of his ten-month-old daughter, Daijah White. On appeal, Walker contended the evidence was insufficient, that the jury was improperly charged, and that trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Walker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Daniel Thomas was convicted by jury for malice murder in connection with the shooting death of Elliott Mizell. Thomas argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court erred by admitting an involuntary custodial statement; and that trial counsel was ineffective in two ways. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding the evidence was sufficient to support Thomas’s convictions; the custodial statement was not involuntary; and Thomas failed to show that his trial counsel was deficient as to one ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and failed to show prejudice as to the other. View "Thomas v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Antiwan Lane was convicted by jury of malice murder and other charges for procuring the murder of Ivan Perez. The trial court granted Lane a new trial based on a host of grounds, including evidentiary errors and ineffective assistance of counsel. The State appealed, arguing that none of the claimed errors by counsel or the trial court resulted in sufficient prejudice or harm to require reversal. Given the large number of errors at issue, the Georgia Supreme Court first reconsidered and overruled its prior precedent that precluded full consideration of the cumulative effect of multiple errors at trial. The Court then concluded counsel was ineffective in at least two respects and the trial court made at least one key evidentiary error in overruling a defense objection. Lastly, given the combined prejudicial effect of multiple errors by counsel and the trial court, the Court affirmed the grant of a new trial. View "Georgia v. Lane" on Justia Law