Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Tyler Thomas was convicted of malice murder and a firearm crime in connection with the fatal shooting of Ashley Brown during a planned drug deal. The trial court granted Thomas’s motion for new trial, ruling that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose a deal between the State and its witness Jaleesa Glenn. On appeal, the State argued the order granting a new trial should have been reversed, while Thomas argued in his cross-appeal that the evidence presented at his trial was legally insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts, so a re-trial should have been barred by double jeopardy. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court rejected the arguments in both cases and affirmed the trial court’s grant of a new trial. View "Georgia v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Appellant Charles Outlaw was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Angela Rabotte. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress evidence derived from his cell phone records and statements that he made during a meeting in jail with his girlfriend. Further, he argued his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Finding no merit to these claims, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Outlaw v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Carly Walden was charged with malice murder and other crimes for the April 2019, shooting death of her mother, Andrea Walker, at Walker’s home. Walden called police and reported a shooting; she claimed an unidentified man was responsible. Walden was taken to the county sheriff’s office, where she made statements to an investigator before being provided Miranda warnings. On Walden’s motion, the trial court suppressed those statements, while declining to suppress others that she had made earlier in the day. The State appealed the trial court’s ruling in advance of trial. Though the trial court record did not reflect explicit findings were made, the Georgia Supreme Court presumed the trial court implicitly made all the findings in support of its ruling that the record would allow on a motion that did not require such findings. The Supreme Court concluded the record in this case did not allow findings that would be necessary to conclude Walden was in custody when she made the statements at issue, so it reversed the trial court’s suppression of Walden’s statements. View "Georgia v. Walden" on Justia Law

Dana Kessler was convicted by jury of felony murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Jeffrey Morgan, Jr. On appeal, Kessler raised three claims in which the trial court erred, arguing that the cumulative effect of those errors mandated a reversal of his convictions and for a new trial. Finding no such reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kessler v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Demarco Draughn, Xavier Levatte, and Benny Hayward appealed their malice murder convictions for the 2017 stabbing death of fellow inmate Bobby Ricks. Draughn and Levatte challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented at their joint trial to support their convictions. Levatte also argued the State’s mischaracterization of its burden of proof during closing argument amounted to structural error and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to that mischaracterization. He further contended the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever and by permitting the prosecutor and a witness to identify him and his co-defendants in a video of the stabbing. Hayward challenged the trial court’s permitting lay witness identification of him through the video of the stabbing and still images from the video, as well as the trial court’s denial of his own motion to sever and of his request for a charge on simple battery. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court held the evidence was sufficient to convict Draughn and Levatte. Levatte’s claim that the trial court erred in permitting the State’s alleged mischaracterization of its burden of proof during closing argument was deemed waived because Levatte did not object at trial, and Levatte’s ineffective assistance claim failed because he failed to show that any error likely affected the outcome of his trial. The Supreme Court concluded Levatte’s and Hayward’s challenges to the trial court’s permitting identification of them through a video and through still images from the video failed because the prosecutor’s identification of Levatte during opening statements was harmless, the lay-witness identification of Levatte was proper, and any identification of Hayward was cumulative of his identification of himself. The Supreme Court also concluded trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Levatte’s and Hayward’s respective motions to sever because neither defendant showed that he was prejudiced and denied due process by co- defendants’ antagonistic defenses that separate trials might have avoided. Finally, Hayward failed to show that the trial court’s denial of his request for a charge on simple battery likely affected the outcome of his trial. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in all three cases. View "Draughn v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Tina Marie Booth was convicted by jury of felony murder and neglect of an elder person, charges that arose in connection with the death of her mother, Linda Cowart. The evidence at trial showed that Booth took custody of the elderly Cowart after Cowart was discharged from the hospital in October 2016. Booth cared for Cowart in Booth’s home with the assistance of a registered nurse until early December. Cowart was in Booth’s unsupervised care from early December until March 2017, when paramedics entered Booth’s home in response to a report that Cowart was unconscious. Cowart was suffering from pressure-induced ulcers that were so severe that her bones were exposed. The paramedics took Cowart, who was then 74 years old, to the hospital, where she died from complications caused by the ulcers. On appeal, Booth contended the trial court erred: (1) by not declaring a mistrial after the jury returned mutually exclusive verdicts; and (2) by recalling the jury for deliberations after the jury was discharged. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Booth’s convictions. View "Booth v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Two cases consolidated for review by the Georgia Supreme Court arose from a car accident that happened after Byron Perry stole a sport utility vehicle (SUV) from a rental lot where he worked and later crashed into Brianna Johnson and Adrienne Smith while Perry was trying to evade police. Plaintiffs Johnson and Smith each filed a lawsuit alleging claims of negligence and vicarious liability against the rental car company, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC and Avis Budget Group (collectively “Avis”), along with Avis’s regional security manager, Peter Duca, Jr.; the rental location’s operator, CSYG, Inc.; and CSYG’s owner, Yonas Gebremichael. Johnson and Smith also sued Perry, the CSYG employee who stole the SUV involved in the accident, although Johnson dismissed Perry before trial. Separate juries found that Johnson and Smith were entitled to recover damages, but both jury verdicts were reversed on appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded Avis, the only entity found liable for compensatory damages in Johnson’s case, was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict (JNOV) on Johnson’s direct negligence claims because Perry’s intervening criminal conduct was the proximate cause of Johnson’s injuries. In Smith’s case, the Court of Appeal concluded any breach of duty to secure the car rental lot and the stolen SUV was not the proximate cause of Smith’s injuries (due to Perry’s intervening criminal conduct), and CSYG and Gebremichael were entitled to a directed verdict on Smith’s claims that they negligently hired and retained Perry, because Perry was not acting “under color of employment” at the time that he collided with Smith. The Supreme Court determined the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the defendants could not be held liable to Johnson and Smith as a matter of law under the facts of these cases. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in both cases. View "Johnson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant Derrick Agee was found guilty at a bench trial of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Steven Lowe and assault of Monitaaz Simmons. On appeal, Agee contended the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the two witnesses who identified him as the shooter later recanted their statements. Additionally, Agee challenged the validity of his waiver of his right to a jury trial. Concluding these claims lacked merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Agee's convictions. View "Agee v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Million Bedford and Yaheed Brooks were tried together and convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Johnny Jackson. Each contended on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to sustain their convictions and that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial due to the State’s improper comment about courtroom spectators during its closing argument. Separately, Bedford claimed the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict of acquittal and by admitting his pretrial statements. Brooks argued that a detective witness improperly bolstered other witnesses’ testimony and that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to allow him to supplement his motion for new trial with new claims and by not setting an evidentiary hearing on the supplemental motion. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bedford v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Eder Acosta appealed his convictions for malice murder and first-degree cruelty to children in connection with the death of Bryan Guzman. Acosta argued on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting the statements he made during his first interview with law enforcement investigators, and in denying his request to charge the jury on the lesser offense of misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Acosta v. Georgia" on Justia Law