Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael Licata's vehicle was stopped by police because it matched the description of a vehicle that had recently been in an accident and had significant front-end damage. Prior to the stop, sparks were coming off the asphalt as Licata had been driving on the vehicle’s rims. The police officer who ultimately arrested Licata approached Licata and confirmed with Licata that Licata had been involved in an accident. The arresting officer told Licata that he wanted to discuss the accident but he wanted to read Miranda warnings to Licata first. After doing so, the arresting officer asked Licata several questions about the accident. A short time later, the officer asked Licata to perform field sobriety tests. Licata complied and failed the tests. The officer then placed Licata under arrest for DUI less safe, read the implied consent warning, and asked Licata if he would submit to a breath test. Licata twice asked to call his attorney but was denied that request. Licata ultimately responded that he would not submit to a breath test. Following his arrest and prior to trial, Licata sought to suppress the results of his field sobriety tests and evidence that he refused to submit to the breath test. The trial court granted Licata’s motion, concluding that the field sobriety evaluations should have been suppressed because Licata was in custody and was not informed that he had a right to refuse to perform incriminating acts, a right protected by Article I, Section I, Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution of 1983. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider what, if any, Miranda-type warning law enforcement must give before asking a suspect in custody to perform acts protected by Paragraph XVI, and whether a suspect in custody is entitled to the advice of counsel when asked to submit to a state-administered breath test. After its review of the record, the Court determined Licata was not actually in custody. Therefore, it affirmed the Court of Appeals’s ultimate conclusion that the field sobriety tests were admissible, without answering the first question. The Court declined to resolve the issue regarding the advice of counsel, because it was pertinent only to the the admissibility of Licata’s refusal to submit to a breath test, and this determination must be reconsidered in the light of our recent opinion in Elliott v. Georgia (Case No. S18A1204, decided February 18, 2019), wherein the Court concluded refusal evidence was inadmissible. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ opinion regarding the admissibility of the refusal evidence was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Licata v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Justin Tuggle was tried by jury and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the stabbing and beating death of Kevin Harmon. He appealed, alleging, among other things, that the trial court erred in admitting a hearsay statement of a co-defendant at trial, and erred in denying his motion for mistrial. Largely, Tuggle argued the prosecutor made an impermissible argument in his closing arguments to the court, and a curative instruction to the jury was not given. The Georgia Supreme Court found that because the parties' closing arguments were not transcribed, and because the trial court made no finings as to what the State argued, Tuggle could not how the State made an impermissible argument. Tuggle also contended the trial court failed to exercise discretion in sentencing, specifically because it sentenced Tuggle and his co-indictees to the same sentence. The Supreme Court could not say the trial court failed to exercise its discretion during sentencing. It therefore affirmed Tuggle's conviction and sentence. View "Tuggle v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury found Coleman Crouch guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and concealing the death of another person in connection with the fatal shooting of Ruben Miranda and Shaland McConnell. On appeal, Crouch argued the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the mental health problems of his co- defendant, Thomas Andrew Kelly, and Kelly’s mental state at the time of the shootings. Crouch also contended his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to develop and adduce such evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Crouch v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In February 2015, Larry Stanford was convicted of two counts of malice murder in connection with the stabbing deaths of his wife, Peggy Stanford, and Phillip Leaks. On appeal, Stanford contended insufficient evidence was presented to support a finding of guilt. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his convictions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Standford v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Alandis Jackson appealed the denial of his motion for new trial following his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Steven Lewis. On appeal, Jackson argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for burglary; (2) the trial court committed plain error when it charged the jury regarding circumstantial evidence, evidence of good character, and prior statements; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney’s failure to object to such instructions; and (4) the false imprisonment count should have merged with his conviction for the aggravated assault of Titus Robinson. The Georgia Supreme Court determined each of these enumerations of error were meritless, and it affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. View "Jackson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dallas Beck was convicted of felony murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of Corey Liverpool. On appeal, Beck contended: (1) the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter; (2) Beck was denied a fair trial because jurors considered extrajudicial information during deliberations in reaching a verdict; and (3) that Beck was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to admit certain evidence of specific instances of the victim’s violent conduct, reputation evidence of the victim, and evidence of the victim’s violence-themed tattoos. The Georgia Supreme Court determined that a changed Evidence Code, OCGA 24-6-606 (b), governed what was or was not admissible to sustain or impeach a verdict. Here, despite the Court's admonition in Davis v. Georgia, 787 SE2d 221 (2016), the parties did not brief or argue the meaning of Rule 606 (b) at the motion for new trial hearing, and the trial court did not apply it when addressing the jury-misconduct claim raised in Beck’s motion. Similarly, the parties did not address the new rule on appeal. "The difference between the old and new Evidence Code matters in this case." Juror C.C. offered some evidence from which the trial court could conclude that extraneous prejudicial information was brought to the jury’s attention when she testified that sentencing information did not come from other jurors and that it was “given to” them. The Court vacated the judgment, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Beck v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant George Edward Price was convicted of malice murder in connection with the shooting death of his estranged wife, Jackie Price. Appellant argued on appeal: (1) his statement to law enforcement should have been excluded at trial; (2) that the trial court failed to consider his motion for new trial on the “general grounds;” and (3) that trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Price v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dearies Favors appealed the denial of his motion for new trial after a jury found him guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the October 2012 death of Demarcus Booker. Favors argued the trial court abused its discretion by admitting, over Favors’ objection, a photograph showing Booker after he had been shot because the photograph was unnecessarily graphic and because it did not accurately depict the crime scene. Additionally, Favors argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying Favors’ request to immediately issue a jury charge regarding sympathy when one of the State’s witnesses became emotional during his trial testimony. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Favors' convictions. View "Favors v. Georgia" on Justia Law

During his 2007 trial, Derrick Cartwright raised an alibi defense to charges of murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Kevin Stafford. Cartwright was convicted and sentenced to serve life in prison plus five years. On direct appeal, he claimed among other things that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge a police detective's testimony that Cartwright had not mentioned his alibi during his post-arrest police interview. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Cartwright’s convictions, rejecting his claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to introduce the testimony, finding Cartwright had not shown prejudice because at the motion for new trial hearing, he failed to call the detective as a witness or introduce a transcript of the detective’s preliminary hearing testimony. Cartwright then filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging among other things that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to introduce evidence to prove trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to impeach the detective. The habeas court denied the petition. The Supreme Court granted Cartwright’s application to appeal for consideration of whether the habeas court erred in ruling that Cartwright had not shown that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court concluded the habeas court’s ruling was erroneous, and therefore reversed the denial of habeas relief. View "Cartwirght v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

In 2003, a jury found Willie Chambers guilty of armed robbery, four counts of kidnapping, five counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. He was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison for armed robbery; 20 years for each count of kidnapping, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the armed robbery sentence; 10 years for each count of aggravated assault, concurrent with all the other counts; and five years on probation for firearm possession, consecutive to all the other counts. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Chambers' application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his petition for habeas relief to address: (1) whether the habeas court erred in concluding there was sufficient evidence of asportation (of the victim) to support the kidnapping charge; and (2) whether the aggravated assault charge merged into the armed robbery count. The Supreme Court determined the habeas court failed to recognize the merger of the latter counts, and set aside the conviction for aggravated assault. The Court remanded for resentencing, leaving intact the other convictions and sentences. View "Chambers v. Hall" on Justia Law