Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Herbert Drews was convicted of crimes related to the death of James David Ayers, who was a 70-year-old man, and the aggravated battery of Troyce Warren. Appellant alleged the evidence was insufficient to show that he was an active participant in those crimes. He also argued his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate allegations raised by a supplemental police report and attendant dashboard camera video. Finding no reversible errors, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Drews' convictions. View "Drews v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Herbert Drews was convicted of crimes related to the death of James David Ayers, who was a 70-year-old man, and the aggravated battery of Troyce Warren. Appellant alleged the evidence was insufficient to show that he was an active participant in those crimes. He also argued his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate allegations raised by a supplemental police report and attendant dashboard camera video. Finding no reversible errors, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Drews' convictions. View "Drews v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Morrison was tried before a jury and found guilty of the malice murder of his girlfriend Tammie Smith. He appealed pro se, asserting multiple claims of error. Having reviewed these claims, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to any of his claims, and affirmed his conviction. View "Morrison v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Morrison was tried before a jury and found guilty of the malice murder of his girlfriend Tammie Smith. He appealed pro se, asserting multiple claims of error. Having reviewed these claims, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to any of his claims, and affirmed his conviction. View "Morrison v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Derek Kemp, Harvey Hogans, and Alphonso Watkins appealed their convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Derek Gray. Kemp and Watkins challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, and all defendants raised various challenges to the testimony of Steve Lewis, a fellow gang member. Watkins also argued the trial court erred in permitting a “non-examining doctor” to testify about the post-mortem examination of the victim. The defendants also purport to “preserve” certain claims to the extent they may be applicable in future habeas proceedings. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendants’ convictions, there was no error in admitting or refusing to strike Lewis’s testimony, and the so-called “non-examining doctor” was the medical examiner who was allowed to testify about the autopsy he performed on the victim. The defendants’ claims that they wished to “preserve” certain arguments failed because the Court determined defendants did not raise any meaningful arguments on appeal in this respect. The Court therefore affirmed their convictions. View "Kemp v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Derek Kemp, Harvey Hogans, and Alphonso Watkins appealed their convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Derek Gray. Kemp and Watkins challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, and all defendants raised various challenges to the testimony of Steve Lewis, a fellow gang member. Watkins also argued the trial court erred in permitting a “non-examining doctor” to testify about the post-mortem examination of the victim. The defendants also purport to “preserve” certain claims to the extent they may be applicable in future habeas proceedings. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendants’ convictions, there was no error in admitting or refusing to strike Lewis’s testimony, and the so-called “non-examining doctor” was the medical examiner who was allowed to testify about the autopsy he performed on the victim. The defendants’ claims that they wished to “preserve” certain arguments failed because the Court determined defendants did not raise any meaningful arguments on appeal in this respect. The Court therefore affirmed their convictions. View "Kemp v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Terrance Dent appealed his convictions and sentences for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, as well as the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, all in connection with the shooting death of Jevon Freeman. Dent challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the failure to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter in accordance with Edge v. Georgia, 414 SE2d 463 (1992), and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dent v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Terrance Dent appealed his convictions and sentences for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, as well as the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, all in connection with the shooting death of Jevon Freeman. Dent challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the failure to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter in accordance with Edge v. Georgia, 414 SE2d 463 (1992), and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dent v. Georgia" on Justia Law

David Leeks appealed his convictions for malice murder and other charges stemming from the robbery and fatal shooting of a Fulton County convenience store clerk, Zerit Haileslasie. Leeks argued his convictions should have been reversed because the trial court committed plain error in charging the jury: (1) on the concept of party to a crime; and (2) that the jury may consider an identification witness’s level of certainty in assessing the reliability of the identification. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error with respect to the jury instructions and affirmed Leeks' convictions. View "Leeks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 1999, Robert Hall, Jr. purchased property in Roswell, Georgia. In April 2005, after having married Cathleen Mary Cahill, Hall recorded a quitclaim deed that transferred the Roswell property to “Robert A. E. Hall, Jr. and Cathleen M. Cahill as Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship.” Approximately three years later, the couple divorced. Pursuant to a settlement agreement incorporated into a final judgment and decree of divorce, Cahill was to have “exclusive use and possession” of the Roswell property until she reached the age of 66, at which point the property would be sold and the net proceeds divided equally between the parties; the decree dictated that both Hall and Cahill were to “remain on the title” until the property was sold. In the following years, Hall failed to pay federal taxes, and, in February 2013, a notice of federal tax lien was filed against “all property and rights belonging” to Hall. Cahill resided on the property until her death on April 19, 2015; the property was not listed for sale before her death. The Estate of Mary Cathleen Cahill filed a quiet title action against the United States of America in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a determination that the right of survivorship was severed before Cahill’s death, thus giving her estate a one-half interest in the property. The Estate argued that the settlement agreement demonstrated an intent to sever the joint tenancy, while the Government argued that the parties’ failure to address the issue amounted to an unambiguous retention of the right of survivorship. The federal district court certified a question of Georgia law to the Georgia Supreme Court, questioning the effect of the parties' divorce decree on the joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Though the divorce decree plainly addresses the use, possession, and eventual sale of the property – as well as the names on the deed to the property – the decree is silent on the question of the survival of the joint tenancy, and the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the provision was, in fact, ambiguous. The Court found the divorce decree in this case severed the joint tenancy with right of survivorship created by the April 2005 deed. View "Cahill v. United States" on Justia Law