Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Craig Heidt was tried by jury and convicted of the murders of his father and brother, an aggravated assault and aggravated battery upon his mother, burglary, attempt to commit arson in the first degree, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred when it disqualified one of his lawyers for a conflict of interest, denied his motion to disqualify the trial judge, denied his motion to change venue, attempted to rehabilitate prospective jurors who already had formed an opinion of his guilt, admitted certain evidence of his prior difficulties with his brother, and rejected his "Brady" claim. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Heidt v. Georgia" on Justia Law

U. S. Bank, N. A. and Vatacs Group, Inc. both claimed title to certain residential real property in Fulton County, and U. S. Bank filed a petition to quiet title to the property. The trial court appointed a special master, and after an evidentiary hearing, the special master found that U. S. Bank had good title to the property, that Vatacs had no interest in the property, and that, even if Vatacs had some interest in the property, the doctrine of equitable subrogation rendered the interest of U. S. Bank superior to any interest of Vatacs. The trial court adopted the findings of the special master and entered judgment vesting fee title to the property in U. S. Bank. Vatacs appealed, contending that the case should have been tried by a jury and that the findings of the special master were erroneous. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit in these claims of error, and affirmed. View "Vatacs Group, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, NA" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Carla Joan Simmons was found guilty of felony murder and various other offenses in connection with the strangulation death of Paul Rucker. On appeal, she contended that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain her convictions and that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to withdraw the parties’ plea agreement. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Simmons v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Zerrick Breion Walker was convicted of the malice murder of Ronaldo Lorenzo Hill and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, he contended that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his convictions and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; he also contended that the trial court, in ruling on his amended motion for new trial, did not apply the standard of review requiring the exercise of discretion under OCGA sections 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 and sought remand of his case to the trial court for proper consideration of the amended motion for new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Appellant's latter contention and remanded the case to the trial court to consider the amended motion for new trial under the proper standard. View "Walker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Bobby Gibson appealed his convictions for the murder of Tasha Brown and the aggravated assault of her mother, Yvette Brown, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court disagreed with Gibson's contentions and affirmed his convictions. View "Gibson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Darius Ellis was tried by jury and convicted of the murder and attempted armed robbery of Marvel Stripling, as well as possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Ellis appealed, contending that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court improperly limited his voir dire of prospective jurors; (3) that the trial court improperly commented on the credibility of a witness; and (4) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed the briefs and record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed. View "Ellis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, Labaron Curry appealed his convictions for two counts of felony murder and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Finding that the evidence in this case, including Curry’s admission, was sufficient to enable a jury to determine that Curry was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Curry v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Robert Merrill Smith was convicted of the malice murder of his wife Jennifer, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the content of the jury instructions, the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence of the victim’s purported acts of violence against third parties, and contended he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that all of appellant's contentions of error were without merit and that the trial court did not err in finding that ineffective assistance of counsel had not been proven. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Chaudhry Rashid appealed his conviction for malice murder in connection with the strangulation death of his daughter, Sandeela Kanwal. Rashid challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt, grants of immunity to members of his family, the admission into evidence of a videotaped conversation between himself and his family, the use of a transcript of the videotape, and aspects of the trial court’s instructions to the jury. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rashid v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Montay Lee Merritt was tried by a jury and convicted of the murder of his wife. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Merritt appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred when it failed to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. Upon review of the briefs and record, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Merritt v. Georgia" on Justia Law