Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lavaris Dawson was convicted by jury of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Mamadou Camara. On appeal, Dawson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, and argued the trial court erred in admitting Dawson’s statements to a detective during an interview because those statements were impermissibly induced by a hope of benefit, and that Dawson was denied his due process right to a timely appeal. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed Dawson’s convictions. View "Dawson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Renita Collins was tried for murder along with co-defendant Michael Stallworth. Collins appealed her convictions for murder and possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Keith Jacobs. On appeal. Collins contended she was denied a fair trial due to juror misconduct, the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing her to subpoena juror testimony to show that misconduct had occurred, and the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to excuse a prospective juror for cause. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed conviction. View "Collins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Javis Whitehead was convicted by jury of murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Dominique Larry. On appeal, Whitehead challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented to rebut his claim of self-defense and to convict him for murder beyond a reasonable doubt. He also argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his custodial statement, and in refusing to excuse for cause the District Attorney from the panel of prospective jurors prior to the conclusion of voir dire. Finding no merit to these contentions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed conviction. View "Whitehead v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Larry Rosser was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Alexis Vereen. On appeal, Rosser challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, and argued the trial court erred by not granting his motion for a mistrial, and by allowing the State to introduce a portion of Rosser's custodial statement to law enforcement. In addition, he argued he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error after reviewing the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed conviction. View "Rosser v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Brandon Carter was convicted by jury of malice murder and two firearm offenses in connection with the shooting death of Terrance Baker. On appeal, Carter contended the trial court erred by admitting certain hearsay statements into evidence and by violating his constitutional right to be present during his trial. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed conviction. View "Carter v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jimmy Evans was convicted by jury for murder and other crimes relating to the 2006 deaths of Tavoris Calhoun and Dezmon Thomas. On appeal, Evans argued that because he was visibly intoxicated at the time he made statements to law enforcement and consented to a search of his home and person, the statements and consent were involuntarily given and the trial court should have granted his motion for new trial on this ground. Furthermore, Evans argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress at trial on the same basis. Because Evans failed to show error or ineffective assistance of counsel, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "Evans v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Kenneth Howard was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Emily Ann Smith Newbegin. Howard appealed, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in Howard's claim of error, and affirmed. View "Howard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Cuevas Carlos Santana was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2010 shooting deaths of Israel Espinoza Mendoza, Vincente Soto Chavez, and Renato Soto Valencia. On appeal, Santana argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by declining to grant Santana a new trial on the general grounds, and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Santana’s convictions. View "Santana v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Larmell Heyward was convicted by jury of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2007 shooting death of Ramon Rogers. Heyward argued on appeal of those convictions that the trial court erred in denying his request to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court determined the trial court’s refusal to give the charge was harmless, since, in the Court's estimation, there was no realistic probability that the jury would have accepted the "slight" evidence of voluntary manslaughter in the light of the strong evidence of malice murder. View "Heyward v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Reuben Valrie was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the death of his infant daughter Aliyana. Valrie appealed, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Aliyana died as a result of closed head trauma, with a blunt-force abdominal injury as a secondary cause of death, which investigators determined was consistent with being shaken or dropped. At trial, Valrie presented the testimony of four expert witnesses who testified that Aliyana died of natural causes and that the injuries to her brain and abdomen were caused by events such as post-mortem CPR and the “rough” handling of her body by first responders. The jury rejected this defense and found Valrie guilty of murder and the other charges. Valrie contended that his trial lawyer should have raised a hearsay objection to the admission of recorded statements that his girlfriend (and Aliyana's mother) made to police investigators (as well as the testimony of one of those investigators about some of those statements). Alternatively, Valrie argued that his lawyer should have sought the redaction of certain portions of the recorded statements that impugned his character. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded Valrie failed to present evidence that his trial counsel was deficient, or that he was prejudiced by any alleged failures. According, the Court affirmed conviction. View "Valrie v. Georgia" on Justia Law