Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shakeim Dorsey appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Derickes Miles. Dorsey argued on appeal: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erroneously allowed the medical examiner to testify about matters outside his area of knowledge; and (3) the trial court erroneously admitted a witness’s prior consistent statements. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed because: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Dorsey’s convictions; (2) Dorsey invited any error regarding the medical examiner’s testimony; and (3) the witness’s prior consistent statements became admissible after Dorsey suggested that the witness had fabricated his testimony. View "Dorsey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In January 2017, a jury was empaneled to try Travis Yarbrough for murder and other crimes. Before the State rested its case, Yarbrough moved for a mistrial, alleging prosecutorial misconduct in the direct examination of a witness. The trial court granted the motion, declared a mistrial, and Yarbrough then filed a plea in bar, asserting that a retrial would subject him unconstitutionally to double jeopardy. The trial court denied the plea in bar, and Yarbrough appealed. Finding no error in that denial, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Yarbrough v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Damien Simpkins was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the June 2013 shooting death of Kenneth Quarterman, Jr. On appeal, Simpkins argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence of a non-testifying codefendant’s statements that inculpated Simpkins (known as a Bruton violation). The Georgia Supreme Court found no deficiency and affirmed. View "Simpkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rajonte McGruder was convicted of malice murder in the death of Kenneth Quarterman, Jr., aggravated assault against Lewis Brown III, and other crimes in connection with a drive-by shooting in June 2013. On appeal, McGruder argued the evidence admitted at trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that McGruder was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted, and therefore affirmed. View "McGruder v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This case arose from a January 2013 roadway altercation between George Ebinger and another motorist, Logan Lord, that came to a head in a shopping center parking lot. Lord claimed to have suffered injuries to his arms when Ebinger hit him with a shovel. Lord testified at trial that he initially held a knife at his side and then began to stab at Ebinger only after Ebinger began swinging at him with the shovel. Ebinger testified that Lord began attacking him with a knife as soon as he exited his vehicle and that he struck Lord with the shovel only to defend himself. Warden Ahmed Holt appealed the grant of habeas relief to Ebinger, who was tried in 2014 by jury and convicted of one count of aggravated assault. The habeas court granted relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The Warden argued the habeas court erred by improperly reaching the merits of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims and by finding that Ebinger was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s alleged deficiencies. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed because Ebinger’s failure to complete the record with relevant evidence from the trial proceedings was fatal to all of the claims for which he was granted habeas relief. View "Holt v. Ebinger" on Justia Law

Appellant John Taylor was tried and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with the February 2011 death of Gene Musgrave and aggravated assault of Robert Sauls. Taylor appealed, alleging: (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) that the trial court erred during closing argument; and (3) that his indictment was fatally defective. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Taylor v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dustin Putnal was been indicted for one count each of malice murder, aggravated battery, and aggravated sexual battery and two counts each of felony murder and cruelty to children in the first degree in connection with the death of Ella Grayce Gail Pointer, a minor, on or about October 28 or 29, 2016. The State sought the death penalty. After the trial court issued an order denying Putnal’s motion to proceed ex parte and under seal with regard to his requests for defense-retained mental health experts to gain access to him in the detention center where he is incarcerated, Putnal obtained a certificate of immediate review from the trial court and filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted Putnal’s application in an order directing the parties to address: “Whether the trial court erred in denying Putnal’s motion to proceed ex parte and under seal with regard to matters pertaining to his expert mental health investigation.” The Court also directed that, in addressing this question, the parties discuss Zant v. Brantley, 411 SE2d 869 (1992), in which the Court previously held that the State was not entitled to be present at a hearing concerning the defendant’s request for an access order similar to the access orders involved in Putnal’s case. After review of that briefing, the Supreme Court concluded the issue presented in this case was controlled by Brantley. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court order from which Putnal appealed, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Putnal v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the warrantless search of Richard Caffee resulting in the discovery of marijuana was authorized by an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The Court of Appeals concluded that the warrantless search was permissible because it was supported by probable cause to believe that marijuana would be found on Caffee. “Absent consent, probable cause generally is a necessary condition to support a warrantless search of a person, but it is not by itself sufficient; a warrantless search must also fall within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” To the extent the Court of Appeals suggested otherwise, the Supreme Court determined it was wrong. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court affirmed because the warrantless search was permissible as a search incident to arrest (even though it preceded the formal arrest) as the police officer had developed probable cause to arrest Caffee for possession of marijuana before conducting the search. View "Caffee v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Ashleigh Ricks appealed the denial of her 2017 motion for an out-of-time appeal of her guilty-plea conviction for felony murder. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the trial court was without jurisdiction to decide the motion. View "Ricks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Latisha McCoy was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana to the extent it was less safe to drive after she was stopped at a roadblock in Henry County, Georgia. She moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop and arrest on the ground that the roadblock violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied McCoy’s motion, and following a bench trial, found her guilty. She appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. The Georgia Supreme Court granted McCoy’s petition for certiorari on whether the Court of Appeals erred in its application of LaFontaine v. Georgia, 497 SE2d 367 (1998), in determining whether the roadblock was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, in particular the factor that considered the screening officer’s training and experience. Although the Supreme Court did not follow the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals, it affirmed the judgment, and in doing so, clarified the factors needed to determine whether a roadblock is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. View "McCoy v. Georgia" on Justia Law