Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Clarence Casey was convicted by jury of felony murder predicated on an aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Alfred Bradley. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Casey appealed, alleging: (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (2) the trial court did not apply the proper standard in evaluating Casey’s claim for relief on the “general grounds” set forth in OCGA sections 5-5-20 and 5-5-21; and (3) the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence. While the Georgia Supreme Court found was sufficient evidence to support the verdict as a matter of due process, it concluded the trial court failed to exercise its discretion as the “thirteenth juror” under OCGA sections 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 in ruling on Casey's motion for a new trial. The Court therefore vacated the trial court's order in part and remanded the case to the trial court. Necessarily, the Court did not reach Casey's final enumeration of error. View "Casey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dylon Allen and Zaykives McCray appealed their convictions for malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Chiragkumar Patel. Allen argued on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior robbery and by allowing McCray’s out-of-court statements to be used against Allen, and that these errors cumulatively prejudiced him. McCray argued the trial court erred by failing to ensure that McCray understood his right to be present at bench conferences and failing to instruct the court reporter to transcribe the entirety of voir dire. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed: (1) Allen’s convictions, because any errors in admitting evidence of a prior robbery and McCray’s out-of-court statements were harmless, even considered cumulatively; and (2) McCray’s convictions, because the record showed McCray elected not to attend bench conferences despite being told that he could, and the trial court was not required to order the court reporter to transcribe voir dire. View "Allen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In the parking lot of a gas station, a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) game warden told Christopher Thornton to turn down the volume of his car stereo. Thornton refused to comply, and he eventually drove away, dragging the game warden for a short distance. He later was arrested and charged with several crimes, including two counts of obstructing a game warden in the lawful discharge of his official duties. Thornton was convicted by jury. On appeal, he argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions for obstruction because it failed to establish that the game warden was in the lawful discharge of his official duties at the time of the incident. In particular, Thornton argued that a game warden had no authority to enforce the Uniform Rules of the Road, which limited the volume of sound that can be emitted from a stereo in a motor vehicle - in the parking lot of a gas station. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and affirmed the judgment of conviction. Although its analysis differed somewhat from that of the Court of Appeals, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the obstruction convictions could stand. View "Thornton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jim Lowery challenged his 2017 conviction for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Montgomery County, Georgia Sheriff Ladson O’Connor, who was killed in a vehicular accident while pursuing Appellant. Appellant argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his felony murder conviction; (2) the trial court failed to apply the correct standard in denying his motion for new trial on the general grounds; (3) his pretrial statements to investigators were inadmissible because they were not knowingly and voluntarily made; and (4) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Sheriff O’Connor’s character. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. View "Lowery v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Former sheriff's deputies Henry Lee Copeland, Rhett Scott, and Michael Howell were indicted by grand jury for the felony murder (and other offenses) of Eurie Lee Martin. Each defendant sought immunity from prosecution under OCGA 16-3-24.2, claiming that his actions resulting in Martin’s death were in defense of himself or others. Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order granting immunity to Deputies Copeland, Scott, and Howell, and the State appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court determined that, in granting immunity, the trial court made findings of material fact that were inconsistent with its legal conclusions regarding the deputies’ encounter with Martin, conflated principles regarding the reasonable use of force by law enforcement with self-defense and immunity, made unclear findings of material fact with respect to whether any or all of the deputies used force intended or likely to cause death, and did not address the facts pertinent to each of the three deputies individually. For these reasons, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s ruling and remanded the cases for further consideration. View "Georgia v. Copeland et al." on Justia Law

After Christina and Marshall Wellington were unable to pay a drug debt, Otis Hill shot them. Christina died; Marshall survived, but lost an eye. Hill and Aviance Marshall (“Aviance”), who drove Hill and the Wellingtons to the location of the shooting, were charged with malice murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and related offenses. Hill was convicted of kidnapping and murdering Christina, kidnapping, battering, and attempting to murder Marshall, and a weapons charge. On appeal, Hill contended the evidence was insufficient as to kidnapping. In addition, Hill argued the trial court erred: in using a deficient master jury list; in failing to determine whether a juror was proficient in English; in instructing the jury regarding note taking; in admitting evidence of cell site location information, the effects of cocaine on memory, and witness intimidation; in excluding evidence of the maximum penalty Aviance faced; in instructing the jury regarding the reasonable-doubt standard; and in denying his motion for a new trial on the general grounds. Hill also claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel. But for an error in sentencing, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Hill's convictions. The matter was remanded for correction in sentence: because there was no evidence that Hill committed aggravated battery in the manner alleged independent of the act which was intended to cause Marshall’s death, the count of aggravated battery merged with the conviction for attempted murder for sentencing purposes. View "Hill v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Dakota Swann challenged his 2014 convictions for murder and other crimes in connection with the 2008 shooting death of Shannon Williams. Appellant argued trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to fully investigate an earlier shooting incident involving Appellant or to utilize it at trial and for not discussing the parole implications of the State’s plea offer. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed with Appellant's contentions and affirmed his convictions. View "Swann v. Georgia" on Justia Law

David Sharpe was convicted by jury of felony murder and other related crimes in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Devonte Coney. On appeal. Sharpe argued he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to the testimony of a GBI special agent and failed to poll the jury. The Georgia Supreme Court did not find Sharpe received ineffective assistance of counsel, however, the Court did find the evidence legally insufficient to sustain Sharpe's conviction for theft by receiving stolen property. "Although the State produced evidence that the gun had been stolen approximately ten months prior to the shooting and that Sharpe was in possession of it shortly after the shooting, the State offered no other evidence relevant to this count. Specifically, there is no evidence from which the jury could infer that Sharpe knew or should have known that the gun was stolen." This conviction was reversed; judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "Sharpe v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Brian Atkins was convicted by jury of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault and possession of a firearm, all in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Brian Parks. On appeal, Atkins argued the evidence was insufficient to prove he assaulted Parks with a deadly weapon, the trial court erred in excluding an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement, and that the verdict form was misleading. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Atkins' convictions. View "Atkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Arion Henderson was convicted by jury of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault in connection with the death of his grandfather, William Stridiron. Henderson contended on appeal that the State violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance in several regards. Finding no reversible error, however, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Henderson's convictions. View "Henderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law