Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was indicted on one count of child molestation, alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2009 and August 31, 2009, and two counts of sexual exploitation of children, that were alleged to have occurred on or about January 21, 2010. After a bench trial, appellant was convicted of child molestation and of one of the counts of sexual exploitation of children, and acquitted of the other count. At sentencing, the trial court opined that the law provided that it could not sentence appellant to less than the mandatory minimum of five years to serve in prison for the child molestation conviction because the conviction for sexual exploitation of children was a “relevant similar transaction,” which precluded a downward deviation under OCGA 17–10–6.2 (c) (1) (C). The court then sentenced appellant to 20 years, with five years to be served in prison, on the child molestation charge, and a concurrent sentence of five years to be served in prison for the sexual exploitation conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the trial court had correctly applied the statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the appellate court was correct in construing the phrase, “relevant similar transaction,” as used in the applicable statute in this case. Finding that the appellate court was indeed correct in so holding, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Evans v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Robert Morrow was tried by jury and convicted of sexual assault under OCGA 16-6-5.1(b)(1). Morrow had been employed as a paraprofessional at River Ridge High School in Woodstock, where he was assigned to attend to a student with special needs, “P.M.” Morrow appealed his conviction and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the State failed to show that Morrow had specific authority over P.M. (as required by statute), and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The Georgia Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, and concluded that the State could carry its burden of proving supervisory or disciplinary authority by evidence of general or specific authority. Here, the State came forward with evidence that Morrow had some general supervisory or disciplinary authority over students in P. M.’s math class, and so, the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed his conviction on that ground. However, the Court concluded the State failed to prove that Morrow was a “teacher, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator of any school,” and for that reason, Morrow’s conviction could not stand. The Court of Appeals was affirmed, but on different grounds. View "Georgia v. Morrow" on Justia Law

Appellant Anthony Herrington appealed his conviction for felony murder based on aggravated assault in connection with the shooting death of Curtis Howard. Appellant argued on appeal to the Supreme Court: that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction on aggravated assault; that his motion for mistrial based on the prosecutor’s questions during voir dire was improperly denied; and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Herrington v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant John Philpot and two others were charged with murder and other crimes arising out of the 2003 drive-by shooting death of Lisa Mosby, along with the firing of gunshots toward Troy Mitchell, Anthony Floyd, and King Brown. The three co-defendants were jointly tried, and appellant and co- defendant Ernest Glass were convicted of all charges. Co-defendant Lizzie Philpot, appellant’s younger sister, was found not guilty. Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants, and contended the trial court erred in failing to exclude his custodial statement, claiming it was made involuntarily with the hope of benefit. After review of the record and appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Philpot v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Lonnie Dawson was convicted by jury of malice murder, burglary, and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime, contending that the trial court made certain evidentiary errors and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in many ways. The Supreme Court reviewed Dawson's arguments on appeal, found no reversible error and affirmed the convictions. View "Dawson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Gregory Williams and Shauna Smith were tried together and convicted for murder, burglary and related crimes in connection with the 2007 shooting death of Brian Mosely. Both appealed, one challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial; the other arguing her constitutional right to be present during all critical stages of trial was violated. Smith’s claim arose from her exclusion from an unrecorded bench conference between the trial court and counsel, after jury deliberations had begun, regarding the excusal of one of the jurors. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that Smith acquiesced in the error she raised on appeal. The Court therefore affirmed both convictions. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rodney Shepard was tried by jury and convicted of murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, both in connection with the fatal shooting of David Lumpkin. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Shepard appealed, contending: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress a statement that he gave to law enforcement officers; (3) that the trial court erred when it charged the jury; and (4) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court saw no error, and affirmed. View "Shepard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Hannibal McMullen was convicted of malice murder, aggravated stalking, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in connection with the shooting death of Ketrita Jones. He appealed, arguing, inter alia, the evidence was insufficient to prove venue. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McMullen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Cortez McClain, Walter Simon, and Anthony Gene Trim were tried by jury and convicted of several crimes in connection with an attempted robbery. At trial, there was a dispute about the qualification of a prospective juror, whose daughter previously had been prosecuted in the same county for an armed robbery. During voir dire, the prospective juror expressed her discomfort with serving on the jury, explaining that the same prosecuting attorney had been involved in her daughter’s case, and noting that her daughter had been represented in that case by the lawyer now representing Trim. The prosecuting attorney sought to have the prospective juror struck for cause, but McClain, Simon, and Trim wanted to keep her. Over their objections, the trial court excused the prospective juror. McClain, Simon, and Trim appealed, and each claimed that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. McClain alone asserted that the trial court erred when it excused the prospective juror for cause. Finding the evidence legally sufficient, the Court of Appeals affirmed Simon and Trim’s convictions. But as to McClain, the Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that a trial court has discretion to excuse a prospective juror for cause only after “an adequate inquiry has been conducted,” and concluding that the inquiry into the impartiality of the prospective juror in question was inadequate. Simon and Trim then filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, each asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal because his lawyer failed to raise a claim of error about the juror. A habeas court granted Simon’s petition; a different habeas court denied Trim’s petition, and Trim appealed. Although Warden Stan Shepard urged the habeas court to deny Trim’s petition, the Warden informed the Supreme Court that he no longer disputed that Trim was entitled to habeas relief. Though the Supreme Court was not bound by the litigating position of the Warden, the Court found it had an obligation to decide for itself whether the judgment of the habeas court was legally sound. Finding that it was, the Court affirmed the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. View "Trim v. Shepard" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Michael King for storing property on his Clayton County property without a proper permit. He appealed, arguing he was prosecuted for political reasons. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court found no merit in this assertion, and affirmed the conviction. View "King v. Georgia" on Justia Law