Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In October 2009, a Catoosa County Sheriff's deputy pretending to be a 14-year-old girl named "Tiffany" posted a listing on an internet website indicating she was looking for something fun to do over an upcoming holiday weekend. Appellant Timothy Grube, then a 27-year-old male, responded to the post and subsequently exchanged numerous e-mail communications with undercover officers who were posing as Tiffany. Grube ultimately arranged to meet Tiffany for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations. He was arrested by police when he arrived at the agreed upon meeting place. Grube was indicted on charges of computer pornography, attempted aggravated child molestation and attempted child molestation. The trial court determined all three counts of the indictment were deficient because each failed to identify the victim of the alleged crimes. The State filed a second indictment charging Grube with the same crimes but amended the language used so as to identify the victim as "'Tiffany,' a person believed by the accused to be a child" and "'Tiffany,' a person he believed to be a 14-year-old girl." Grube filed a special demurrer to the second indictment, asserting the indictment failed to again sufficiently identify the victim. The trial court agreed, and the indictment was dismissed. After the Court of Appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by finding the second indictment insufficient to withstand a special demurrer. Finding that the second indictment satisfied the dual goals of informing the defendant of the charges against him and protecting him from a possible second prosecution for the same offense. Accordingly, Grube's indictment was not subject to the special demurrer and the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. View "Georgia v. Grube" on Justia Law

Appellant Dana Meade and Appellee Tim Williamson were the candidates on the ballot in a run-off election in the Democratic primary for Sheriff of Baker County. Meade was the incumbent in the race and was, at the time of the election, serving as Sheriff. Meade was declared the winner by a margin of 39 votes. Williamson contested the results of the election. After a bench trial, the trial court issued an order setting forth findings of fact and reaching the conclusion that sufficient irregularities in voting and in the election process were shown to cast doubt upon the election result. The election was declared invalid and a new election was ordered. The Supreme Court has set aside elections under two different circumstances: where the evidence showed that a sufficient number of electors voted illegally or were irregularly recorded in the contest being challenged to change or cast doubt upon the election; or where systemic irregularities in the process of the election were sufficiently egregious to cast doubt on the result. The evidence presented at trial met neither of these standards. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order invalidating the August 21, 2012 run-off election in the Democratic primary for Sheriff of Baker County. View "Meade v. Williamson" on Justia Law

Appellant Monty Simpson was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life in prison for the strangulation death of his girlfriend Beverly Jean Williams. Appellant contended on appeal that the circumstantial evidence against him was insufficient to convict him of murder. Alternatively, appellant argued that someone else was the perpetrator. These contentions were not borne out by the trial record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Simpson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joseph Norman Vanstavern appealed the denial of his motion for new trial and his convictions and sentences for malice murder and possession of a firearm or knife during the commission of a crime in connection with the fatal shooting of Joey Lankford Rush. He claimed the trial court erred in its mention to the jury of a redacted count in his indictment and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "VanStavern v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal in this case involved the use of local school taxes for general redevelopment purposes following the Supreme Court's February 2008 decision interpreting the Georgia Constitution's Educational Purpose Clause in "Woodham v. City of Atlanta," (657 SE2d 528 (2008)); the subsequent amendment to the Constitution's Redevelopment Powers Clause in November 2008; and the repeal and reenactment of the statutory Redevelopment Powers Law in April 2009. Appellant John S. Sherman argued that the Court's holding in "Woodham" violated the Educational Purpose clause, rendered the resolutions, redevelopment plans, and intergovernmental agreements approving the City's Perry-Bolton and BeltLine tax allocation districts ("TADs") unconstitutional in their entirety, void ab initio, and unamendable. Appellees the Atlanta Independent School System, City of Atlanta, and Atlanta Development Authority, argued that Woodham invalidated only a particular bond issuance for the BeltLine project and had no effect at all on the constitutional validity of the local government approvals for the BeltLine TAD, much less the Perry-Bolton TAD. Upon review of the arguments, the Supreme Court concluded Appellees were wrong. "It is clear that, under the law when we decided Woodham in February 2008, the local government approvals for the Perry-Bolton and BeltLine TADs would have been ruled unconstitutional to the same extent that this Court held that the proposed funding for the BeltLine bonds was unconstitutional; at that time, local school taxes could not be used for general redevelopment purposes. But Sherman is also wrong . . . because the subsequent constitutional amendment and revision of the statute governing TADs changed the applicable law, and those changes were expressly made retroactive with respect to the county, city, and local board of education approvals needed to use school taxes for redevelopment purposes. Thus, Sherman's constitutional challenges to the Perry-Bolton and BeltLine TADs lack merit." Sherman's other arguments, were also found meritless. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Appellees and its denial of partial summary judgment to Sherman. View "Sherman v. Atlanta Independent School System" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Howard Holloman, Jr., appealed his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and cruelty to children, contending that the trial court gave the jury an incomplete instruction on aggravated assault, certain text messages were improperly admitted into evidence, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and improper impeachment evidence was admitted during his motion for new trial. Finding no error or ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed Holloman's conviction. View "Holloman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Hoehn was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime relating to the shooting death of Robert Congleton. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to sustain his objection after a juror directly asked a witness a question and in denying his claim that the felony murder count of the indictment was defective because it failed to allege the elements of the underlying felony of aggravated assault. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hoehn .v Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ronnie Faircloth was convicted of murder and other offenses in connection with the September 2007 shooting death of his wife. Faircloth appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior difficulties between the couple and testimony regarding past statements made by the victim. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Faircloth v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Shinderen Durden appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes relating to the shooting death of Shannon King. Appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the crimes of which he was convicted and sentenced. The Court affirmed the convictions and sentences except for Appellant's sentence for aggravated assault, which was vacated, and his felony sentence for tampering with evidence, which was vacated and remanded for resentencing as a misdemeanor. View "Durden v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia certified three questions regarding the operation of the State's law governing non-judicial foreclosure to the Georgia Supreme Court. After careful analysis, the Georgia Court concluded that current law did not require a party seeking to exercise a power of sale in a deed to secure debt to hold, in addition to the deed, the promissory note evidencing the underlying debt. The Court also concluded that the plain language of the State statute governing notice to the debtor (OCGA 44-14-162.2), required only that the notice identify "the individual or entity [with] full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor." This construction of OCGA 44-14-162.2 rendered moot the third and final certified question. View "You v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law