Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jehrod Romer appealed his murder and firearm possession convictions in connection with the shooting death of 16-year-old Quantavia Hill. Appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred in allowing his brother's testimony to be impeached with evidence that the brother refused to give a statement to the police on the day after the shooting, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Romer v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted discretionary review in this case between Appellant and Georgia resident JoBeth Parker, and her then-husband, Appellee nonresident James Timothy Parker. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a final order of custody and child support. Appellant raised several issues relating to the child support award. Prior to the entry of the final order, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration to which she attached proposed alternative worksheets for each child. Although the motion was denied, its filing showed that the parties did not agree to the deviations set forth in the final order. The Georgia Court concluded that the trial court's finding that the parties did agree was therefore made in error. Upon remand, the trial court was required to enter a new final order revised based upon newly prepared child support worksheets. View "Parker v. Parker" on Justia Law

David Robert Norton appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, arson, criminal attempt to commit the crime of concealing the death of another, possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the shooting death of Amy Ayers. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his convictions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Norton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Todd McNair was charged and convicted by jury of identity fraud for the theft and use of the victim's credit card. Prior to being sentenced, appellant argued that the rule of lenity should be applied such that he would be sentenced for committing financial transaction card theft a crime for which he was not charged or convicted, but which has a lesser penalty than identity fraud. The trial court rejected this argument and sentenced appellant as a recidivist to 10 years (five years to serve). The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the rule of lenity did not apply when the statutory violations at issue were both classified as felonies, even though the offenses carried different punishments. Because the Court answered the question in the affirmative, the Court of Appeals' was reversed and the case remanded for the appellate court to reach the merits of the case. View "McNair v. Georgia" on Justia Law

DHS, on behalf of the minor child of Johnny Wright (father), filed a complaint against him, asking the superior court to order Father to pay child support and maintain accident and health insurance, and enforce the order through an income deduction order. During a hearing on the complaint, the trial court learned that Father was currently married to Monica Wright, the mother of the child, and that no divorce or separate maintenance action had been filed. The court concluded that without an order, neither parent is the "custodial parent," and concluded that DHS therefore had no authority to pursue an award of child support. The Supreme Court, after its review, reversed, finding that DHS could seek a child support award against one parent without a divorce action. View "Georgia Dept. of Human Services v. Wright" on Justia Law

Weston Cronkite was prosecuted for DUI and filed a motion under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State to obtain, through the testimony of an out-of-state witness, the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the evidence was not material, and, on interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals applied this Court?s decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that Cronkite's expert's testimony amounted only to speculation that the Intoxilyzer 5000 software contained an unknown flaw that could have affected the test results and thus failed to establish the materiality of the source code. The Supreme Court granted Cronkite's petition for certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals properly applied established Georgia case law in arriving at its conclusion. While the Court did not agree with the appellate court's analysis, it agreed with the outcome and affirmed but for different reasons. View "Cronkite v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Appellant Timothy Boothe was found guilty of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the death of Geneva Strickland. Appellant contends on appeal (among other things) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence photocopies of police sketches of two men that were based on descriptions from one of the State's witnesses. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that even if the admission of the sketch copies violated the "best evidence" rule of Georgia's old Evidence Code, that error was harmless. Appellant's other enumerations of error lacked merit. View "Boothe v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants John Sherman and Christopher D. Eichler appealed a trial court’s judgment confirming and validating a bond issuance by the City of Atlanta. At the bond validation hearing, the City successfully disputed Appellants’ standing to become parties and raise objections in this case, because no competent evidence was admitted to show that either Appellant was a Georgia citizen and Atlanta resident, which were the prerequisites to becoming a party under the Revenue Bond Law. Appellants appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sherman v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

Stephen Jenkins brought a tort action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. alleging that a Bank teller had improperly accessed Jenkins’s confidential information and given it to her husband, allowing the husband to steal Jenkins’s identity. Jenkins claimed the Bank negligently failed to protect the information, breached a duty of confidentiality, and invaded his privacy. The trial court granted the Bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court of Appeals reversed as to Jenkins’s negligence claim after finding that the allegations of his complaint established the elements of negligence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a violation of an alleged duty imposed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act gave rise to a cause of action for negligence under Georgia law. The Supreme Court concluded that the holding was in error, and reversed that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Appellants Lisa Norton and Beth Simmons filed a caveat to their father Charles Norton's will, claiming undue influence. The caveat was rejected, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Appellants then filed a declaratory judgment action to determine what effect the will's in terrorem clause had upon their rights under the will. The trial court found appellants had no rights under the will. Appellants challenged the trial court's finding, arguing that the clause in question was incorrectly interpreted, and though the clause may have eliminated their specific devises, it did not affect their ability to inherit under a residuary clause. Finding no misinterpretation in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Norton v. Norton" on Justia Law