Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the defendant was convicted of malice murder and other related offenses following the shooting death of one individual and the non-fatal shooting of another at a gas station in Chamblee, Georgia, in December 2016. The incident began with a brief confrontation inside the store, after which the defendant retrieved a gun and fired multiple shots at the victims as they attempted to leave. Surveillance footage and witness testimony supported the prosecution’s account, and evidence was presented regarding the defendant’s gang affiliation and prior criminal history. The defendant testified, admitting to the shooting but claiming self-defense, asserting that he believed one victim was armed and threatening.The case was tried in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, where a jury acquitted the defendant of one count of participation in criminal gang activity but found him guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and other charges. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole and additional consecutive terms for the other offenses. The felony murder conviction was vacated by operation of law, and one aggravated assault count merged into the malice murder count. After the verdict, the defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was denied following an evidentiary hearing.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, the defendant argued that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in several respects, including failing to object to the admission of certain prior convictions and other evidence. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the defendant failed to demonstrate either deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "COPNEY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case concerns the killing of Regina Trotter, who lived in Alabama with Micah Blake Taylor and another individual. On January 31, 2021, Taylor took Trotter’s van without her permission. After returning the van, Trotter told Taylor he could no longer stay at her home. She agreed to drive Taylor and Jenae Dickinson back to Dickinson’s residence. During the drive, Taylor strangled Trotter after Dickinson directed Trotter down a dirt road. Taylor then pulled Trotter into the back of the van, and after a struggle, removed her from the vehicle. Trotter’s body was found the next day with evidence of strangulation and sharp-force injuries. Physical evidence, including DNA and items found at the scene, linked Taylor to the crime. Taylor was later found asleep in Trotter’s stolen van.A Heard County grand jury indicted Taylor and Dickinson. Dickinson pleaded guilty to lesser charges and testified against Taylor. In March 2023, a jury in the Superior Court of Heard County found Taylor guilty of malice murder and related offenses. He was sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive ten-year term. Taylor’s motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court in September 2024. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Taylor’s claims that the trial court erred in admitting evidence obtained from his Facebook account and cell phone records, arguing the warrants lacked probable cause. The Court held that even if the warrants were deficient, any error was either not plain or was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the challenged evidence was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence and the evidence of Taylor’s guilt was overwhelming. The Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "TAYLOR v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who lived with his father in Barrow County, Georgia, and was accused of killing a family friend who often stayed at their home. After the friend’s disappearance, the accused made suspicious statements to his father, and the friend’s body was later found in the trunk of his own car, having been shot multiple times. The accused was apprehended after fleeing from law enforcement, and during post-arrest interviews, he admitted to the killing and provided details that were corroborated by physical evidence. At trial, he testified that he shot the victim after a confrontation related to past sexual abuse and introduced evidence about his methamphetamine use and its effects.A Barrow County grand jury indicted the accused on multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, firearm possession during a felony, concealing a death, and methamphetamine possession. After a jury trial in the Superior Court of Barrow County, he was found guilty on all counts. The court sentenced him to life plus eighteen years in prison, with certain counts merging or being vacated as a matter of law. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed three main claims: the failure to give a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication, the admission of prior-act evidence under Georgia’s Rule 404(b), and the admission of his post-arrest statements. The Court held that the trial court properly declined the requested intoxication instruction because it misstated the law, any error in admitting the prior-act evidence was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and the admission of the defendant’s statements did not violate due process because there was no evidence of police coercion. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions. View "WOSCHULA v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Two defendants were indicted for murder, multiple violations of Georgia’s Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, and other crimes related to the shooting death of a victim. The State alleged that the defendants were associated with the Bloods gang and committed the murder to further the gang’s interests. During the investigation, law enforcement obtained extensive Instagram records believed to be linked to the defendants, containing messages, photos, and videos that the State argued demonstrated gang affiliation. One defendant moved to exclude certain social media posts from his trial, arguing they were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, duplicative, and otherwise inadmissible, though he did not cite specific legal authority.The Superior Court of Hall County held a hearing on the motion. The State did not specify exactly which portions of the social media records it intended to introduce but highlighted a particular group message as significant evidence of gang association. The trial court ruled orally and in a subsequent written order that only messages or posts authored by the defendant on trial, or those to which he directly responded, would be admissible; all other evidence of gang association from the social media records was excluded. The court’s reasoning focused on “basic fairness,” without citing specific evidentiary rules or legal standards.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case on the State’s appeal. The Court held that the trial court’s order must be vacated because it was unclear what legal standard the lower court applied in excluding the evidence. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not clearly base its ruling on relevance or the balancing test required by OCGA § 24-4-403 (Rule 403), which governs the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or other concerns. The Supreme Court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "THE STATE v. SIMS" on Justia Law

The case concerns the shooting death of Keshia Smith, who was killed on September 2, 2018. Demarko Marquez Moss was identified as the suspect after his father informed police that Moss may have been the shooter. Moss turned himself in the next day. Evidence at trial included testimony from Moss’s brother, who received a call from Moss shortly after the shooting, and text messages between Moss and Smith that suggested a tumultuous relationship. Smith was found dead in her car, with two young children in the back seat. The State also introduced evidence and expert testimony regarding domestic violence, though the expert had no specific knowledge of Moss or Smith.A Fulton County grand jury indicted Moss on multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses. At trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County, the jury acquitted Moss of two counts of cruelty to children but convicted him on the remaining charges. Moss was sentenced to life without parole plus additional consecutive sentences. He filed a motion for new trial, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Moss then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Moss’s convictions. The court held that there was no plain error in failing to instruct the jury on confession corroboration because Moss’s statement to his brother was not a confession. The court found that Moss’s motion for a mistrial was not preserved for appellate review due to lack of a contemporaneous objection. Any error in admitting the domestic violence expert’s testimony was deemed harmless. The court also rejected Moss’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and found no cumulative error. View "MOSS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Christopher Profet was charged with malice murder, armed robbery, and related offenses following the shooting death of Latonya Morris-Figg in Fulton County, Georgia. On May 15, 2014, Profet was seen with Morris-Figg as she cashed money orders intended for the purchase of a car. Surveillance footage placed them together at two stores, and Morris-Figg’s body was later found in a rural area, missing her purse, phone, and cash. Evidence at trial included witness testimony about Profet’s clothing and possession of a handgun, shoe impression analysis, and DNA evidence linking Profet to Morris-Figg. Profet’s statements to investigators were inconsistent with the timeline established by surveillance footage and witness accounts.After a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Profet was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Profet’s motion for a new trial was denied, and after procedural delays regarding notice of the denial, he timely appealed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Profet’s claims, including sufficiency of the evidence, alleged errors regarding his right to testify, limitations on his defense, admission of expert testimony about shoe impressions, and the jury’s viewing of photographic evidence. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court was not required to secure an on-the-record waiver of Profet’s right to testify, and that no plain error occurred in admitting expert testimony under the applicable evidentiary standard. The Court also found no error in allowing the jury to view photographs during deliberations and rejected Profet’s claim of cumulative error. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "PROFET v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in 2003 of felony murder and aggravated battery following the death of his two-month-old son, based on a diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). At trial, the prosecution relied on the then-prevailing medical consensus that a specific triad of symptoms in infants was diagnostic of SBS and indicative of abuse. Years later, the defendant sought a new trial, arguing that significant developments in medical science had undermined the reliability of the SBS diagnosis, and presented new expert testimony suggesting alternative, non-abusive causes for his son’s injuries and death.After the original conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, the defendant filed an extraordinary motion for new trial in the Superior Court of the county of conviction, citing newly discovered evidence in the form of updated expert analysis and medical literature. The trial court initially denied the motion without a hearing, but the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated that decision and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. On remand, after hearing extensive expert testimony from both sides, the trial court again denied the motion, finding that the evidence was not newly discovered, that the defendant had not exercised due diligence, and that the evidence was not material.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the trial court’s decision and held that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal framework in evaluating the extraordinary motion for new trial. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in its analysis of whether the evidence was newly discovered, whether the defendant exercised due diligence, and whether the new evidence was material. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration under the proper legal standards. View "SMITH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Brandon Williams was charged with multiple crimes, including two counts of malice murder, following the deaths of Natalie Nation and her son, Cole Nation. Williams lived with his father and Natalie, while Cole sometimes stayed with them. On the night of the incident, witnesses heard Williams yelling threats at Natalie, including statements like “I’m going to kill all of you.” Later, Williams’s father found Natalie and Cole unconscious in Natalie’s room, with a towel tied around Natalie’s neck. Both victims died from asphyxia, and Cole also suffered blunt-force trauma. Williams was arrested at a nearby gas station, and his DNA was found on the towel used in the crime.After a jury trial in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Williams was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences without parole for the malice murder convictions. The trial court merged the remaining counts with the malice murder counts, though the felony murder counts were vacated by law and the cruelty to children count should not have merged. Williams’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Williams’s claim that the trial court erred by admitting a hearsay statement under the residual hearsay exception. The statement, made by Natalie to a friend, described a prior incident in which Williams had choked her. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement, finding it met the requirements of trustworthiness, materiality, and probative value under OCGA § 24-8-807. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Williams’s convictions. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

A group of teenagers and young adults devised a plan to rob and murder a man, Justin McKinney, and his girlfriend, Anna Franklin, as revenge for a drug-related incident involving one of the conspirators’ brothers. On the night of the crime, several of the group entered the victims’ home, where one participant shot and killed McKinney, and another shot and wounded Franklin. The group then fled, disposed of weapons, and made incriminating statements. Franklin survived and identified some of the assailants. Physical evidence, including firearms and shell casings, corroborated the events described by witnesses and participants.After the incident, several co-defendants pleaded guilty, while one was tried separately. The appellant, who was a juvenile at the time, was tried by a jury in the Superior Court of Fannin County and found guilty on all counts, including malice murder, attempted murder, and related offenses. He was sentenced to life in prison plus additional consecutive and concurrent terms. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The appellant argued that his custodial statements should have been suppressed due to his age, learning disability, and other factors; that the trial court erred by modifying a pattern jury instruction to include “age” as a factor not to influence the jury; and that a post-incision autopsy photograph was improperly admitted. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court did not err in admitting the custodial statements, as the totality of the circumstances showed a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights. The Court also found no plain error in the jury instruction and no abuse of discretion in admitting the autopsy photograph. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Two defendants were convicted by a jury of felony murder and related offenses after a fatal shooting outside a game room. The incident involved a physical altercation between the victim and the defendants, during which the victim was shot multiple times and his cell phone was taken. Eyewitnesses placed the defendants at the scene, described a fight immediately preceding the shooting, and identified one defendant as the shooter. DNA evidence linked one defendant to the victim, and both defendants gave inconsistent statements to investigators. The prosecution also introduced evidence of gang affiliation and suggested a motive related to the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement.The case was tried in the Superior Court of Emanuel County, where the jury found both defendants guilty on most counts. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and denied their motions for new trial, except as to the gang-related charge, which the court found was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court’s rationale for reversing the gang conviction barred retrial on that count, and the State entered a nolle prosequi for it. The defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain testimony, and the denial of their motions for directed verdict and new trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the appeals. It held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, was sufficient for a rational jury to find both defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, including as parties to the crimes. The Court found no error in the admission of prior inconsistent statements or in the trial court’s handling of the gang evidence. The Court also determined that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motions for new trial on the general grounds. The convictions were affirmed, except for the gang-related count, which was not at issue on appeal. View "Bostic v. State" on Justia Law