Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jahvon Pittman was tried by jury and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Maxwell Fiandt. Pittman appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Though the Supreme Court found no merit in Pittman’s trial phase enumerations, it did find that the trial court erred during sentencing, and, therefore, vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "Pittman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Don McCray was convicted of murder and other offenses arising out of the shooting death of Darius Grover. McCray’s sole defense was justification in that he acted in self defense. In his first two enumerations of error, McCray claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and also that the State failed to disprove every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt and thus failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, McCray contended the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence relating to the custodial statement he gave to the authorities when he voluntarily turned himself in. McCray alleged several other errors at trial all entitled him to dismissal of the charges against him or in the least, a new trial. Finding no reversible errors, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCray v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, Clarence Clark appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of Marlon Brown. His sole challenge was that his trial counsel was ineffective in two respects: in failing to object to the use of the term “murder” during trial testimony and in not objecting to the introduction into evidence of his statement to police. Finding the challenge to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Clark v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ladarrius Jones was convicted of two counts of malice murder for the shooting deaths of Thaddeus Nelson and Randy Wilder; four counts of aggravated assault for shooting in the direction of Amanda Hill, Alexis Jenkins, Audra McCluster, and Shametia McCluskey; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove venue, the trial court erred in failing to give a jury charge on voluntary manslaughter, and his aggravated assault convictions should have merged with his malice murder convictions. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed because the State established venue beyond a reasonable doubt, the voluntary manslaughter charge was not warranted under the evidence presented, and the aggravated assault offenses did not merge with the malice murder convictions because the crimes involved different victims. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The State appealed the trial court’s pre-trial decision to suppress statements made by appellee William Clark during a police station interview. In 2008, appellee called 911 after assaulting and killing his paramour, Deborah Jeffries, by striking her in the head with a golf club and stabbing her in the chest more than twenty times. Detective J.D. Stephens of the Atlanta Police Department testified he began video-recording the interview after appellee had already been talking for seven minutes. The video recording was approximately 33 minutes long. Less than 30 seconds into the recording, appellee says, “This is off the record,” and Detective Stephens responds, “Yeah.” Appellee then proceeds to discuss his three-year history with the victim, accusing her of various nefarious activities and describing how she used her relationships with other men to goad him into becoming upset or angry. About 22 minutes into the recording, Detective Stephens reminds appellee that he was read his rights. Appellee simply continues to talk. At approximately 28 minutes into the interview, appellee puts his head down on the table, but keeps talking. Appellee eventually describes the point at which he hit and stabbed the victim. Detective Stephens again reminded appellee that his rights were read to him. While Detective Stephens is out of the room, appellee can be seen on the video climbing on top of the table, then lying down on it as if in distress. The video then stops. According to Detective Stephens, the paramedics found nothing wrong with appellee and, after they left, he resumed interviewing appellee for about 40 more minutes, but did not record it. At the trial court’s hearing on appellee’s suppression motion, the trial court stated it believed Detective Stephens had read appellee his Miranda rights, but it did not believe appellee understood those rights. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress his videotaped custodial statement on the ground the State failed to carry its burden to show it was voluntary. The Supreme Court affirmed. View "Georgia v. Clark" on Justia Law

Appellant Antonio Shaw was convicted of the malice murder of Shomari Grier, criminal attempt to commit the murder of Ashley McCord, aggravated assault of Lashaun Brown, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Appellant contended on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a witness’s alleged gang affiliation and in not instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Shaw v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Cordado Burrell was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with crimes he committed against Herman Upshaw and Ruth Griffith. Burrell appealed, claiming: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the trial court committed reversible error during trial; and (4) the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of “Brady v. Maryland.” Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burrell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Heather Kimbrough and Melissa Mayfield were charged by indictment with a violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The indictment alleged that Kimbrough and Mayfield, being associated with an enterprise, violated the Act by participating in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, and it identified the alleged enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity. But other than the allegation that Kimbrough and Mayfield participated in the enterprise “through” a pattern of racketeering activity, the indictment said nothing at all about the alleged connection between the enterprise and the racketeering. Seeking more detail about that alleged connection, Kimbrough and Mayfield filed special demurrers. The trial court, however, denied the special demurrers, and Kimbrough and Mayfield appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the indictment contained enough detail about the connection between the enterprise and the racketeering activity to survive a special demurrer, and it affirmed the denial of Kimbrough and Mayfield’s special demurrers. The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review that decision, and reversed: “To be clear, we do not mean to suggest that a RICO indictment must contain pages and pages of extensive detail about the connection between the enterprise and the pattern of racketeering activity. We hold only that the sparse allegations of this indictment - which says nothing at all about the nature of the connection - are insufficient to enable the defendants to prepare for trial. Accordingly, the special demurrers ought to have been sustained, and the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the denial of the special demurrers.” In that respect, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed. View "Kimbrough v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jamarrcus Sullivan was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Kevin Daniel and aggravated assault of Kamenika Whatley. Sullivan appealed, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Though the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in Sullivan’s claims of ineffective assistance, it did find error with regard to his sentences, and, therefore, the Court vacated the sentences and remanded for re-sentencing. View "Sullivan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 1999,Joe Carr was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Ernest Golden. Carr’s conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Supreme Court, but the trial court granted Carr’s extraordinary motion for new trial after his brother confessed to the murder. Soon thereafter, Carr’s brother recanted his confession, Carr was retried, and Carr again was found guilty of Golden’s murder. Carr appealed, contending that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Carr also claimed that the trial court improperly “derailed” his attempt to enter into a favorable plea agreement prior to trial. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Carr v. Georgia" on Justia Law