Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Quinntavish Kennedy appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes related to the 2012 shooting death of Isiah Archible. At trial, the State introduced other acts evidence under OCGA 24-4-404 (b), and Kennedy’s sole argument on appeal was that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument referencing that evidence, which Kennedy interpreted as an impermissible argument that he had a propensity for committing crimes. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding trial counsel was not deficient because a reasonable attorney could have interpreted the prosecutor’s statements merely as arguing that the evidence established Kennedy’s intent to commit the charged crimes. View "Kennedy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michelle Hall, who was represented by counsel in her first appeal, sought to pursue a second direct appeal, which was not authorized by Georgia law, leaving the Georgia Supreme Court without jurisdiction to consider on the merits. Hall was convicted of malice murder and family violence aggravated assault in 2009. Her convictions were affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court in her first direct appeal. She applied for habeas relief, which was ultimately denied. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief, and remanded to Georgia federal district court with instruction to remand to state court for a new direct appeal. The federal district court ruling served as the basis for Hall’s appeal before the Georgia Supreme Court. While the Georgia Supreme Court found itself in “no position to dictate the parameters of relief granted by the Eleventh Circuit, the relief granted by the Eleventh Circuit in this case is not available. In Georgia, the normal remedy for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in a situation where the defendant has not suffered a complete denial of counsel in his or her first direct appeal is a new trial, not just a new appeal.” Although the Eleventh Circuit's holding that Hall is entitled to habeas relief due to ineffective assistance of her appellate counsel is res judicata on the State, the State lacks the legal authority to provide the specific relief the Eleventh Circuit ordered. View "Hall v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Harris was tried and convicted of murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, criminal trespass and other crimes committed against David Rucker, Ashley Gay and Rucker and Gay’s two minor children. Harris appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the charges, the trial court erred in denying a mistrial or continuance after an alleged discovery violation, his trial court have been severed from that of co-defendant Denirio Cunningham, and that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence whose prejudice outweighed its probative value. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence was insufficient to establish Harris’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the three counts of false imprisonment, and his convictions and sentences for the same were reversed. The trial court was affirmed in all other respects, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Raymon Green appeals his conviction for malice murder and other crimes, stemming from two different incidents occurring on May 9 and 21, 2010, the latter of which resulted in the death of Christopher Finney. Green argued on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict as to certain counts. He also argued trial counsel provided ineffective assistance: (1) in failing to move to sever the counts related to the May 9 incident; (2) introduce a certified copy of a burglary conviction of a key State witness (Tony Chatfield); (3) seek a jury instruction on impeachment by felony conviction; and (4) argue in closing that Chatfield’s conviction rendered his testimony unbelievable. Because the evidence was sufficient to support Green’s convictions and he has not shown that he was prejudiced by any of the alleged deficiencies of counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Frisby appealed a trial court’s order denying his motion for an out-of-time appeal of his 1995 convictions based on guilty pleas to malice murder and other crimes related to the stabbing death of Karen Benning and the attempted murder of Carrie Missinne. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court determined Appellant has not shown a proper excuse for not filing a timely appeal, and as such, he was not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. View "Frisby v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Taurean Thorpe was tried and convicted of felony murder and related offenses in connection with the June 2010 shooting death of Justin Evans. Thorpe appealed, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court committed reversible error. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thorpe v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Moises Herrera-Bustamante was convicted after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and having an open container of alcohol. About a year later, while his motion for new trial was pending, the Georgia Supreme Court decided Olevik v. Georgia, 806 SE2d 505 (2017), which held that under the compelled self-incrimination clause of the Georgia Constitution, individuals have the right to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. Herrera-Bustamante then amended his motion for new trial to argue for the first time that evidence that he refused to consent to a breathalyzer test should not have been admitted against him at his DUI trial. The trial court agreed and granted him a new trial on this ground. Because Herrera-Bustamante never raised this claim at trial and has not shown that the admission of the breathalyzer refusal evidence was plain error, the Supreme Court reversed the order granting him a new trial and remand the case for the trial court to consider the other grounds raised in the amended motion for new trial. View "Georgia v. Herrera-Bustamante" on Justia Law

Appellant Raven Marie Delaney was convicted of malice murder and related offenses arising from the shooting deaths of John Evans and Robert Holcomb. On the night of April 5, 2004, a number of individuals gathered with two men at a trailer, including Appellant, Josh Rood, and Lindsey Stamey. During the gathering, Appellant asked Stamey if she wanted to help “roll” (or rob) the victims; Stamey declined the offer, reported the odd request to her mother, and eventually went home. At some point, Appellant was left as the only remaining guest in the victims’ residence. LEvans and Holcomb were discovered shot dead in their trailer. Rood directed the investigators to the gun, which was determined to be the murder weapon. Appellant gave two statements to law enforcement. In the first interview, she denied knowing anything about the murders; in the second statement, however, she detailed how Rood committed the murders while she was merely outside waiting for a ride. On appeal, Appellant contended that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to object when, during its case-in-chief, the State questioned one of its witnesses about Rood “passing” a polygraph examination concerning his involvement in the murders. Appellant argued the polygraph testimony was inadmissible because it served only to bolster Rood’s trial testimony and that the testimony hampered the defense’s theory that Rood was the actual murderer. Finding no merit to this argument, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction. View "Delaney v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Jerome Atkins’s convictions for statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. Thereafter, the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and posed the following two questions: (1) whether a victim’s prior statements can constitute sufficient corroboration under OCGA 16-6-3; and (2) whether the defendant was properly prohibited under OCGA 24-4-412 from seeking testimony regarding the sexual activity that was at issue in the trial. The Court found a victim’s prior statements cannot constitute sufficient corroboration under OCGA 16-6-3. With respect to the second question, the Court determined, after a close review of the record, Atkins was “in essence, asking to conduct a fishing expedition regarding the identity of all of the victim’s sex partners, and the trial court properly did not allow him to do so.” View "Atkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Bobby Stribling, Jr. appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes arising from the fatal beating of William Thomas, Jr. Thomas was placed in a medically induced coma and on a ventilator as a result of the beating, but was taken off the ventilator when his condition failed to improve. On appeal, Stribling’s sole argument was that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, because there was evidence that Thomas might have survived had life support not been withdrawn, and thus the withdrawal of life support was the intervening and ultimate cause of Thomas’s death. The Georgia Supreme Court found the trial evidence authorized the jury to conclude that Thomas did not have a realistic chance of survival and that Stribling’s actions were the proximate cause of Thomas’s death. Therefore, it affirmed Stribling’s murder conviction, but vacated several sentences on convictions that should have merged. View "Stribling v. Georgia" on Justia Law