Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2012, a jury found Charles Mitchell guilty of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, arson, concealing the death of another, making a false statement, and possession of a firearm in commission of a felony in connection with the murder of Gboye Jalloh. Mitchell was sentenced to two life terms plus five years. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and Mitchell appealed, alleging on of error remarks made by the trial court during preliminary instructions to the jury venire. Finding no such errors, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mitchell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Walter Caldwell appealed his conviction and sentence for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault in connection with the beating death of his girlfriend’s fifteen-month-old daughter Tynisha Carlton. His sole challenge was to the trial court’s refusal to strike three potential jurors for cause. Finding the challenge to be without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Caldwell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Demario Carman, along with three other men, was indicted for murder, armed robbery, and related crimes in connection with the 2012 death of Vanessa Thrasher at O.T.’s Lounge in Atlanta. The State gave notice of its intent to seek the death penalty, and the guilt/innocence phase of Carman’s trial began on November 17, 2014. The trial court declared a mistrial during the latter half of the guilt/innocence phase of Carman’s trial. In this appeal, Carman contended his right not to be subjected to double jeopardy and his right to counsel of his choosing would be violated if he were subjected to a new trial following the mistrial. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Carman’s plea in bar, thereby returning jurisdiction to the trial court for the purpose of its conducting a new trial. View "Carman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted prisoner Cardell Abrams’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, posing the question of whether the habeas court correctly dismissed the petition for failure to file within the time allowed by OCGA 9- 14-42(c)(3). Because Abrams’s habeas petition was not timely pursuant to any of the alternative paragraphs of the statute of limitation in OCGA 9-14-42 (c), the habeas court correctly dismissed the petition as untimely. View "Abrams v. Laughlin" on Justia Law

Appellant Nicholas Wade was convicted of murder and related offenses arising out of the beating death of Keon Belk, as well as the aggravated assault of Vinnie Jones. On appeal, Appellant argued: (1) the jury was improperly charged; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted certain testimony and evidence; and (3) that he was improperly sentenced. Though the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error with respect to the verdicts, it agreed Appellant was erroneously sentenced. The Court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "Wade v, Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant John Kennedy Cope appealed his convictions related to the death of Moses Mack. As grounds for his appeal, appellant argued the trial court erroneously admitted two statements he made to police. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Cope v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Odes Dupree was convicted of malice murder and other crimes arising out of the asphyxiation death of 75-year-old Florene Duke. Raising the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him, Dupree asserted the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. Dupree’s defense theory was that some other perpetrator committed the crimes. He also claimed he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error in the trial court proceedings, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Dupree v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (“DFCS”) appealed a superior court decision that found Georgia’s central child abuse registry was unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to appellee Christopher Steiner. The trial court also found that DFCS failed to prove that Steiner committed an act of child abuse by a preponderance of the evidence as required to maintain Steiner’s listing in the registry. The Georgia Supreme Court granted DFCS’s application for discretionary review, and held that Steiner failed to demonstrate a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest sufficient to trigger the due process protections that he claimed were violated by operation of the registry. And because the Act was constitutionally applied to Steiner, he lacked standing to bring his facial challenge on that ground. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held the child abuse registry was not criminal in nature, and that the superior court therefore erred in finding it to be so. And because an abuse investigator’s determination about whether a report of child abuse was supported by the evidence was not a judicial function, the superior court erred in finding that the statute requiring the investigator to report such cases to DFCS for inclusion in the child abuse registry violates the separation of powers provision of the Georgia Constitution. Finally, because at least “some evidence” supported the administrative hearing officer’s conclusion that DFCS had proved an act of child abuse as defined for purposes of the child abuse registry, the superior court erred in reversing the administrative law court. View "Georgia Dept. of Human Services v. Steiner" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Gadson and his brother Nkosi Gadson were tried together and found guilty of the murder of Amady Seydi and other crimes committed against Seydi and his girlfriend Tarah Medsker over the span of three weeks in the fall of 2005. Appellant argued on appeal of his convictions that the trial court committed plain error with regard to one burglary charge by failing to instruct the jury on the State’s burden of proof when the evidence of a crime is wholly circumstantial. He also contended he could not obtain full and fair appellate review of his convictions because five documents were missing from the trial court record. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court determined Appellant had not established plain error in the omission of the proof-by-circumstantial-evidence instruction, nor did he show that he was harmed by the incomplete record. The Court therefore affirmed his convictions. View "Gadson v.Georgia" on Justia Law

The constitutional issue involved in this case was identical to the one that was presented in, and resolved by, the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. State, – Ga. – (Case No S18A0100, decided June 18, 2018). Ryan McGouirk was arrested in January 2016 and charged with the violent offenses of aggravated child molestation, child molestation, cruelty to children (for causing pain to a child by having the child touch him sexually), and arson in the first degree. McGouirk was subsequently released on bond. Following his indictment, McGouirk filed special pleas of mental incompetence to stand trial. In Carr, the Georgia Court sustained a due process challenge to OCGA 17-7-130 (c), which is a statute that had been applied to require the defendant who had been accused of violent offenses in that case and who had been found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial to be transferred to the physical custody of the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (the department) for further evaluation. The part of the trial court’s judgment concluding that OCGA 17-7- 130 (c) was constitutional was reversed[,] the part of the judgment ordering McGouirk to be delivered to the custody of the department for evaluation was vacated, and the trial court’s unchallenged finding that McGouirk was incompetent to stand trial was affirmed. On remand, the trial court was ordered to proceed in accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Carr (and this case], including exercising discretion in deciding whether McGouirk should be committed to the department’s custody for evaluation or should be evaluated on an outpatient basis. View "McGouirk v. Georgia" on Justia Law