Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Criminal Law
Moore v. Georgia
William Moore appealed after a jury convicted him of malice murder for the strangling and beating death of his girlfriend, Mandi Kaiser. He challenged the trial court’s rulings on evidentiary matters, including allowing the State to introduce evidence of his prior violent acts toward another girlfriend. He also argued the trial court erred by denying a request for a jury instruction on mutual combat and by failing to grant a mistrial based on a comment by the prosecutor in closing argument. Further, Moore argued his trial counsel was ineffective in matters related to the other acts evidence. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that any error in admitting the other acts evidence was harmless given the strength of the State’s case. And because Moore had not otherwise shown trial court error or deficient performance by counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Moore v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Guerrero v. Georgia
Jesus Guerrero was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the 2016 fatal shooting of Shiann Cray. Guerrero appealed, claiming the trial court erred when it refused to charge the jury on justification. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Guerrero v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Howard v. Georgia
Appellant Bruce Howard was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Jaylon Maddox during an attempted robbery. On appeal, Howard challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him. The Georgia Supreme Court determined there was sufficient evidence, so it affirmed. View "Howard v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Henry v. Georgia
Appellant Frankie Jay Henry III was convicted by jury for the stabbing death of Antonio Wiley. On appeal, he argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Henry v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Ford v. Tate
In 2005, Nicholas Tate pleaded guilty to the murders of Chrissie Williams and her three-year-old daughter, Katelyn, and to numerous related crimes. He waived his right to a jury trial as to sentencing for the murders. At the conclusion of a sentencing bench trial, the trial court found several statutory aggravating circumstances and sentenced Tate to death for each of the murders. The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Tate’s convictions and death sentences. On January 31, 2012, the day that his execution was scheduled to occur, Tate filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a stay of execution. Tate’s execution was stayed, and he amended his petition on May 16, 2013. The habeas court conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 9-10, 2014, and, in an order filed on December 27, 2018, the court denied relief with respect to Tate’s convictions but granted relief with respect to his death sentences after finding that Tate received ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing trial. In case number S19A0825, the Warden appealed the habeas court’s vacation of Tate’s death sentences, contending that the habeas court erred by concluding trial counsel were prejudicially deficient in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence at the sentencing trial, and in denying the Warden the opportunity to call Tate as a witness at the habeas evidentiary hearing. In case number S19X0826, Tate cross-appealed, contending the habeas court committed reversible error in denying several claims, including several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, the violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the State’s pursuit of contradictory theories, and post-conviction counsel’s conflict of interest. In the Warden’s appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Tate’s death sentences. In Tate’s cross-appeal, the Court affirmed. View "Ford v. Tate" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Eberhart v. Georgia
Appellant Marcus Eberhart, a former City of East Point police sergeant, challenged his 2016 conviction for felony murder predicated on aggravated assault in connection with the tasing death of Gregory Towns, Jr. Appellant contended the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction for two reasons: (1) the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Ford v. Georgia, 423 SE2d 255 (1992), precluded his felony murder conviction; and (2) proof of intense physical pain was not enough, standing alone, to support a jury finding of serious bodily injury as required for the aggravated assault predicate for his felony murder conviction. The Supreme Court determined Ford did not apply to this case, because the predicate for the felony murder conviction was aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Moreover, the State presented expert medical testimony that the repeated tasing of Towns proximately caused not merely the infliction of intense physical pain, but also death. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Appellant’s felony murder conviction. View "Eberhart v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Shaw v. Georgia
Earnest Shaw appealed the denial of his motion for new trial after a jury found him guilty of malice murder and concealing the death of another in connection with the death of Elizabeth Richardson. On appeal, Shaw argued the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts because the State’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the State did not exclude all reasonable theories of the crimes other than Shaw’s guilt. Shaw also argued the trial court erred by requiring Shaw to proceed pro se during a pre-trial hearing on the admission of certain evidence and by admitting certain evidence at trial. He further contended he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. Finding no grounds for reversal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Shaw v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Daddario v. Georgia
Appellant Lawrence Daddario challenged his conviction and sentence of life in prison for aggravated child molestation for having sexual intercourse with his 14-year-old daughter, which resulted in a very painful and potentially life-threatening childbirth approximately nine months later. Appellant did not dispute having sexual intercourse with his daughter, but claims he committed only child molestation, not aggravated child molestation, because aggravated child molestation required an act that “physically injures” the child, and pregnancy and childbirth usually are not considered to be physical injuries. He also claimed his aggravated child molestation conviction violated due process, because the statute is unconstitutionally vague regarding whether an act of child molestation that causes a child under the age of 16 to endure childbirth can “physically injure[]” the child. Alternatively, he claimed he was entitled to a new trial on the aggravated child molestation charge due to the erroneous admission at trial of incriminating statements that he made to a volunteer court-appointed special advocate (“CASA”) who spoke with him when he was in jail and represented by counsel in his criminal case without first advising him of his Miranda rights. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected both of Appellant's arguments and affirmed his conviction and sentence for aggravated child molestation. View "Daddario v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Green v. Georgia
Following his conviction for the 2014 murder of Janice Pitts, Dewey Green appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. Green argued numerous alleged errors, including that the trial court erroneously excluded two expert witnesses. Because the Georgia Supreme Court agreed the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the entire testimony of one of the expert witnesses, Sean Alexander, for Green’s alleged failure to comply with the requirement set forth in OCGA 17-16-4 (b), the Supreme Court reversed. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Ricks v. Georgia
In 2012, while represented by counsel, Ashleigh Ricks pleaded guilty to felony murder. That same day, the trial court entered a conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. Later that month, during the same term of court, Ricks filed two pro se motions, as well as a letter to the trial court, arguing that her plea was involuntary and that her plea counsel was ineffective; one motion asked “to appeal” the trial court’s sentencing order and the other asked the trial court to “reduce her charge to involuntary manslaughter and sentence her accordin[g]ly.” What would follow was a "complicated" procedural history. Ultimately, the case before the Georgia Supreme Court was an appeal of a trial court's order on several motions that were either nullities, untimely or some combination of both. The Supreme Court determined the trial court should have dismissed them. But because the trial court decided the motions on the merits instead, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "Ricks v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law