Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jeremy Saffold challenged his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2009 shooting deaths of Dorothy and Michael Walker. Thomas Raines was visiting the Walkers, drinking moonshine with Michael in the shed behind their trailer home in Upson County. Raines saw Appellant and Octavious Hart, who both appeared to be high on drugs, enter the shed without knocking. Appellant discussed something with Michael. After about 20 minutes, Appellant and Hart left, and Michael expressed unspecified concerns about them to Raines. Around 1:00 a.m., a neighbor heard a series of gunshots from the Walker residence. Around 4:00 a.m., Appellant called his girlfriend, Katrina Corbin, asking her to pick him up about 15 miles from the Walkers’ home. Appellant went with Corbin to her apartment, where he put his clothes in her bathtub to wash them and bandaged his injured ear and shoulder. Appellant explained to Corbin that he and Hart had an altercation with someone off of Highway 80, that they shot at each other, and that he and Hart set fire to a house. Information provided by Raines and Corbin led the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to the Walkers' residence, which lead to Saffold's arrest. Appellant contended that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions, certain evidence should have been suppressed and that the trial court made several errors that warranted a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's convictions. View "Saffold v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Patti Thornton was charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, making false statements, and tampering with evidence; her co-defendant, Walter Booth, was charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and making false statements. A jury found appellant not guilty of murder but guilty of the remaining charges, and the same jury acquitted Booth of murder and conspiracy to commit murder but found him guilty of making false statements. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s convictions, relying on cases abolishing the "inconsistent verdict rule." The Georgia Supreme Court granted appellant’s petition for certiorari, arguing primarily that the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to murder although her sole co-conspirator was acquitted of conspiracy to murder by the jury before which they were jointly tried. The Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Thornton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Scott Gregory was a convicted sexual offender, and in 2013, the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board classified him as a sexually dangerous predator. Gregory timely asked the Board to reevaluate his classification, but the Board denied his request. Gregory then petitioned the Superior Court for judicial review of his classification, but the superior court affirmed the decision of the Board. In the course of these administrative and judicial proceedings, Gregory had opportunities to submit favorable documentary evidence to both the Board and the superior court, but he never has been afforded an evidentiary hearing on the question of his classification. Gregory appealed the superior court's judgment, asserting that the refusal of an evidentiary hearing violated due process. The Supreme Court agreed, and for that reason, it reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Board" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Gilreath was convicted by jury of malice murder and associated crimes in connection with the beating death of two-year-old Joshua Pinckney, the son of his live-in-girlfriend, Miriam Pinckney. Gilreath appealed, arguing for the most part that the evidence was insufficient and that he was prevented from presenting a complete defense. The Supreme Court concluded after review that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Gilreath's convictions. But the Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in one respect: the State moved the trial court to prohibit Gilreath from eliciting testimony from Pinckney’s ex-husband, who testified as a witness for the State, that Pinckney had a history of threatening both children with physical violence and that, on one occasion, Pinckney slapped a child in the face. The State’s motion in limine was granted, Gilreath made an offer of proof, and the trial court reaffirmed its ruling. "The trial court’s ruling not only hamstrung the defense from rebutting testimony that Pinckney was a good mother, but the ruling also prevented Gilreath from presenting evidence that the only other person in the house at the time had a history of cruel treatment towards her own children. The trial court’s ruling here constituted reversible error." Affirming in part, reversing in part (for malice murder and cruelty to children), the Supreme Court remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Gilreath v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Maurice Murray Battle was convicted of the malice murder of Dipak Patel, the aggravated assault of Johnny Owens and Willie Griffin, and other crimes in connection with an armed robbery of a convenience store. Appellant argued on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial judge erred in not recusing himself from the case after learning of Appellant’s alleged plot to kill him; and that Appellant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not filing a motion for recusal of the trial judge. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Battle's convictions. View "Battle v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Robert Veal challenged his convictions for numerous crimes, including murder and rape, committed in the course of two armed robberies in 2010. He argued on appeal of those convictions to the Supreme Court: (1) the evidence at trial as to one set of crimes was insufficient to corroborate the testimony of his accomplice; (2) the two counts charging him with criminal street gang activity should have merged for sentencing; (3) the trial court erred in sentencing him to life without parole for malice murder because he was seventeen-and-a-half at the time the crime was committed. After review, the Georgia Court vacated appellant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. The Court affirmed on all other respects. View "Veal v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Vonterry Bryant appealed his convictions stemming from the death of Edward Hawkins and the aggravated assault of Allen Cook. On the night in question, Hawkins, Cook, and Mitchieno Carmichael were at a sports bar and, while there, Hawkins and appellant got into an argument regarding a woman. Due to the crowd’s raucous behavior, the bar’s owner closed the bar and sent all patrons outside. As Cook and Hawkins were leaving the bar, appellant approached them and brandished a gun. Cook and Hawkins ran and appellant gave chase, shooting Hawkins and striking Cook with the gun. Hawkins died from the gunshot wounds. Appellant made several arguments to challenge his convictions, centering primarily on trial court errors and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Bryant's convictions. View "Bryant v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 1995, Barry Norris was found shot to death in his home. Petitioner Melissa Norris, who was 15 years old at the time, confessed to her brother and to police that, after an argument with her father, she took a pistol and shot him in the back of the head at close range. Following the grant of Melissa Norris’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Kathy Seabolt, in her capacity as warden, appealed, contending that the habeas court erred in finding appellate counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to allege error from the trial court’s refusal to charge on accident; (2) failing to argue on appeal that the trial court erred by not charging involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of malice murder; (3) failing to argue ineffective assistance of trial counsel on appeal based on trial counsel’s lack of objection to questions and closing argument that allegedly commented on Norris’ right to remain silent; and (4) failing to argue on appeal that the trial court erred by improperly limiting trial counsel’s closing argument to one hour. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the habeas court properly granted relief to Norris on the second ground mentioned above, but erred with respect to various other aspects of its ruling. View "Seabolt v. Norris" on Justia Law

Appellant Duane Clough appealed his convictions related to the death of Christopher Watkins and the aggravated assaults of Michelle Clough (appellant's estranged wife), and Mary Thomas, who was appellant’s mother-in-law. Appellant argued the trial court erred when it failed to give a requested charge on voluntary manslaughter. Because the Supreme Court agreed with this contention after it reviewed the trial court record, it reversed in part. Because of the failure to give the charge on voluntary manslaughter, appellant’s conviction for felony murder (aggravated assault of Watkins) was also reversed. "Upon remand, the State may retry appellant for malice murder and felony murder (aggravated assault of Watkins) or it may, instead, have the trial court sentence appellant for felony murder (burglary)." View "Clough v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Marian Owens appealed her conviction for the 2012 felony murder of Tommy Janes, contending, among other things, that her right to proceed pro se was violated and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Owens' conviction. View "Owens v. Georgia" on Justia Law