Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Criminal Law
by
Jaylen Leverette was indicted along with three others for aggravated assault and felony murder related to a shooting incident on August 1, 2018, where a bystander was killed. Leverette filed a motion to suppress incriminating statements made during a custodial interview, arguing they were inadmissible under various legal grounds, including OCGA § 24-8-824, which excludes confessions induced by the slightest hope of benefit.The trial court granted Leverette’s motion to suppress, finding that his confession was induced by a hope of benefit. The court focused on statements made by Major Ralph Stuart during the interview, which suggested that Leverette would not be charged with the fatal shooting if he admitted his involvement. The court concluded that these statements constituted assurances that persuaded Leverette to confess.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in its decision. The court held that the statements made by Major Stuart did not constitute an impermissible hope of benefit under OCGA § 24-8-824. The court explained that the comments made by Stuart were not promises related to reduced criminal punishment but rather exhortations to tell the truth. The court emphasized that statements indicating that telling the truth would be beneficial or that lying would make things worse do not violate the statute.As a result, the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the trial court’s order suppressing Leverette’s statements and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider Leverette’s other grounds for excluding his statements. View "THE STATE v. LEVERETTE" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
In this case, Nemiyas Smith was convicted by a jury of murder, aggravated assault, and related charges for the shooting of Kornelius Favors and Constance McCier. The incident occurred on March 22, 2019, and Smith claimed self-defense. Smith was indicted on multiple counts, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial took place in November 2021, and Smith was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 25 years.Smith filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. Smith claimed his trial counsel failed to present an expert witness to establish that two different guns fired the bullets that killed Favors, failed to object to the State's improper closing argument regarding felony murder, and failed to object to allegedly false evidence and argument about his brother, Neddrick, being a defendant in another murder case.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Smith's trial counsel was not deficient in failing to present an expert witness, as the decision was a matter of trial strategy. The court also found that Smith's claim regarding the State's closing argument about felony murder was moot because his felony murder conviction was vacated by operation of law. Additionally, the court determined that trial counsel's decisions regarding Detective Casey's testimony about Neddrick were within the range of professional competence. Finally, the court concluded that any false testimony about Neddrick's involvement in another murder case was immaterial and did not affect the jury's judgment. View "SMITH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Shamar Dequan Wilson was convicted for his involvement in the robbery and death of Rashawn Mays and the attempted armed robbery of Adrian Bennett. The crimes occurred on January 22, 2020. Wilson was indicted by a Lowndes County grand jury on April 30, 2021, and charged with felony murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. At his trial in January 2022, the jury found Wilson guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for felony murder, along with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for the other charges. Wilson filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and subsequently appealed.Wilson's appeal focused on the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions of attempted armed robbery and the associated possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He argued that the evidence did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for these specific counts. The trial court had denied his motion for a new trial, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the evidence was sufficient to support Wilson's convictions. The court noted that Bennett's testimony indicated Wilson pointed a gun at him and demanded money, which Bennett interpreted as a demand for his own money. Although Wilson did not take Bennett's wallet and phone, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could infer that Wilson's intent was to avoid being seen by Bennett. Therefore, the court affirmed Wilson's convictions for attempted armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The judgment was affirmed, and all justices concurred. View "WILSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Hector Garcia-Solis was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Hall County Deputy Sheriff Blane Dixon on July 7, 2019. Garcia-Solis, along with co-defendants Brayan Cruz, Eric Velazquez, and London Clements, was involved in a series of burglaries and thefts leading up to the fatal shooting. The group stole vehicles and firearms, and during a police chase, Garcia-Solis shot and killed Deputy Dixon. Garcia-Solis was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus additional consecutive years for other charges.The case was initially reviewed by a Hall County grand jury, which indicted Garcia-Solis and his co-defendants on multiple counts, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and various theft-related charges. Cruz pleaded guilty to some charges and testified for the State. Garcia-Solis, Velazquez, and Clements were tried together, and the jury found Garcia-Solis guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole for malice murder and additional consecutive years for other charges. Garcia-Solis filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed Garcia-Solis's convictions and sentences. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the malice murder conviction, as Garcia-Solis intentionally shot Deputy Dixon, demonstrating an "abandoned and malignant heart." The court also found no merit in Garcia-Solis's claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity, as the jury selection process did not show actual prejudice. Lastly, the court upheld the life without parole sentence, noting that the trial court properly considered Garcia-Solis's age and the egregious nature of his crimes. View "GARCIA-SOLIS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Rondriques Brundage was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony for the shooting death of Rodrell Matthews. The incident occurred on July 10, 2018, and Brundage was indicted on multiple charges, including malice murder and aggravated assault. At trial, Brundage was found not guilty of malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and aggravated assault, but guilty of felony murder predicated on possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and concealing the death of another. He was sentenced to life without parole for felony murder, plus additional consecutive prison terms for the other charges.Brundage filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied except for the merger of the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon count into the felony murder count. He appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's incorrect explanation of self-defense as it applied to felony murder predicated on felon-in-possession and for failing to request a jury charge on the defense of habitation.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and agreed with Brundage that his trial counsel was deficient for not objecting to the State's incorrect explanation of self-defense. The court found that this deficiency prejudiced Brundage, as it was reasonably probable that an objection would have led to a different outcome regarding the felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony charges. Consequently, the court reversed Brundage's convictions on those counts, allowing for the possibility of retrial. The court affirmed Brundage's conviction for concealing the death of another, which was not challenged on appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "BRUNDAGE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Raiem Singleton was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Luz Selene Velazquez and the aggravated assault of David Montes-Ponce. The crimes occurred on May 5, 2017, when Montes-Ponce and Velazquez arranged to buy a phone from a seller named "Tom Li" through a mobile app. When they met the seller at an apartment complex, the seller, accompanied by two other men, shot at Montes-Ponce's car, killing Velazquez. Montes-Ponce identified Singleton as the shooter.A DeKalb County grand jury indicted Singleton on multiple charges, including malice murder and aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Singleton was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, with additional concurrent and suspended sentences for other charges. Singleton filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court after a hearing.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Singleton's appeal, where he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification evidence from a photo lineup. The court employed a two-step process to evaluate the identification procedure, considering whether it was impermissibly suggestive and whether there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court found that even if the lineup was suggestive, there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification due to Montes-Ponce's significant opportunity to view Singleton during the crime and his high degree of certainty in identifying Singleton.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the identification evidence and denying Singleton's motion to suppress. View "SINGLETON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Pascal Lorenzo Reddick was found guilty by a Grady County jury of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, related to the shooting death of Antavius Robinson. The incident occurred when Robinson went to Reddick's home, where Reddick was with Robinson's wife, Lakeisha. Robinson banged on the door and shouted threats. Reddick fired two shots, one from inside the home and another from the porch, hitting Robinson as he retreated.The trial court sentenced Reddick to life in prison for felony murder and a consecutive five-year term for the firearm charge. Reddick's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to disprove his self-defense and defense of habitation claims, that the trial court erred in denying his immunity motion, and that his trial counsel was ineffective.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Reddick guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that Robinson was unarmed and retreating when he was shot, and the forensic evidence supported the State's theory that Reddick fired the fatal shot from the porch. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Reddick's immunity motion, as the evidence did not support his defense of habitation claim.Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that Reddick failed to show that his counsel's performance was deficient or that any alleged deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court found that counsel's decisions were within the bounds of reasonable trial strategy. Thus, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "REDDICK v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Dontarious Burke was convicted of malice murder and armed robbery for the shooting death of Kentrell Jones. The incident occurred on November 27, 2019, and Burke was indicted on March 1, 2021. His trial was severed from his brother DeMarcus Burke's trial. Burke was tried by a jury from October 19 to 20, 2021, and found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder and an additional 20 years for armed robbery. Burke filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court on May 6, 2024. He then filed a timely notice of appeal.The trial court denied Burke's motion for a new trial, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Burke raised several claims, including a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the cumulative effect of errors requiring a new trial. The trial court had admitted testimony from police officers about information obtained from non-testifying witnesses, which Burke argued violated his Confrontation Clause rights. However, because Burke did not raise this objection at trial, the Supreme Court reviewed it for plain error and found none.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Burke's claims and found that none of them warranted a reversal of his convictions. The court held that Burke's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated, as the testimony in question did not clearly and obviously violate established law. Additionally, the court found that Burke's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance, as the decisions made by counsel were within the bounds of reasonable trial strategy. Finally, the court determined that there was no cumulative error that would require a new trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Burke's convictions. View "BURKE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

by
Damone Blalock and Rodalius Eugene Ryan, Jr. were convicted of the malice murder of Jamari Holmes, aggravated assaults of two other individuals, and related crimes. The crimes occurred on February 23, 2019, and the appellants were indicted in May 2019. They were tried together before a jury from September 21 to October 1, 2021, and found guilty on all presented counts. The trial court sentenced them to life in prison for malice murder, with additional consecutive and concurrent sentences for other charges. Their motions for a new trial were denied, leading to this appeal.The appellants argued that their trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in several ways, including failing to object to a witness invoking the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury, not introducing certain evidence, and not objecting to the prosecutor's comments on their silence during closing arguments. Ryan also claimed his counsel failed to investigate his alibi. The trial court found that while counsel was deficient in not reviewing certain evidence, the appellants failed to show that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the trial counsel's strategic decisions, including not objecting to the witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment and not pursuing the alibi defense, were reasonable. The court also found that the appellants did not demonstrate that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the alleged deficiencies had not occurred. The cumulative effect of the assumed deficiencies did not warrant a new trial. Thus, the convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "BLALOCK v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

by
Kenyatta Mitchell was convicted of the malice murder of Carey Von Moss, the aggravated assault of Marcell Greene, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of these felonies. The shootings occurred on September 5, 2016. A Chatham County grand jury indicted Mitchell on November 30, 2016. After a jury trial in April 2021, Mitchell was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, with additional consecutive sentences for the firearm possession and aggravated assault charges. The felony murder count was vacated by operation of law. Mitchell filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.Mitchell appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in several respects: admitting a surveillance video and still images that he claimed were not properly authenticated, allowing a witness to identify him in the video and screenshot, denying his motion to suppress Greene’s identification of him, and denying a motion for mistrial after hearsay was not redacted from a recorded witness interview. He also argued that the cumulative effect of these errors warranted a new trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the surveillance video and screenshots were properly authenticated. The court ruled that the witness's identification of Mitchell in the video and screenshot was permissible due to the witness's familiarity with Mitchell and the poor quality of the images. The court also found no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification in Greene’s identification of Mitchell. Additionally, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial, as a curative instruction was sufficient to address the hearsay issue. Since no errors were found, there were no cumulative errors to consider. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Mitchell’s convictions. View "MITCHELL v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law