Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Albert Durham of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of George McCrary. On appeal, Durham contended that the State elicited improper hearsay testimony, the trial court failed to give a complete charge on circumstantial evidence, and trial counsel was ineffective. Because the trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings and jury instructions and trial counsel's representation was not ineffective, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Durham v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Nehemiah Davis appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, contending that his right to due process was violated when the State offered false evidence at trial. Finding that the evidence was not false and sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Pro se appellant Sandro Campos appealed the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal, following his entry of a plea of guilty to malice murder for the 2004 fatal shooting of Henry Jayaprakasham, and Campos's resulting sentence of life in prison. Finding that there was no error when the trial court determined that appellant was not entitled to an out-of-time appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Campos v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Darchelle Renee Arnold was charged by indictment with two counts of malice murder, four counts of felony murder, three counts of armed robbery, and six counts of aggravated assault, in connection with the shooting deaths of two victims and the wounding of another. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant pled guilty to two counts of felony murder and one count of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life for each felony murder count and twenty years on probation, to be served consecutively, for aggravated assault. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea, claiming: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) she did not enter a knowing, voluntarily, and intelligent plea. Following a hearing, the motion was denied and this appeal followed. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Arnold v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Mark Thornton was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, burglary, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and conspiracy to commit a crime in connection with his role in the shooting death of Joshua Scott. Thornton's motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed his convictions. On appeal, Thornton asserted that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction based on a party to a crime theory; the trial court erred in permitting the State to present evidence of Thornton's prior illegal drug activities; and trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Thornton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Robert Allen Sears was tried by a jury and convicted of the murder of Isaiah Lovett, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Sears appealed and asserted several claims of error, including that the trial court erred when it failed to merge the aggravated assault into his murder conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Sears that the failure to merge was error, and the Court vacated his conviction for aggravated assault and remanded the case for the trial court to sentence him again. The Court found no merit in the other claims of error, and otherwise affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Sears v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Marcin Waldemar Sosniak appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment due to an alleged constitutional speedy trial violation. Because the Supreme Court found that "Callaway v. Georgia" (567 SE2d 13 (2002)), and "Boseman v. Georgia" (438 SE2d 626 (1994)), wrongly decided that the denial of a pre-trial constitutional speedy trial claim may be directly appealed, the Court dismissed Sosniak’s appeal for failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA 5-6-34 (b). View "Sosniak v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In March 2006, appellant Michael Everett was employed as an engineer for appellee Norfolk Southern Railway Company and was tasked with using his locomotive to push a six-car train into an auto plant in Georgia. One of the employees working with appellant misinformed him that the train derailment device was in the "off" position when in fact it was in the "on" position. Acting at the direction of his supervisor, appellant moved the train forward, and, due to the position of the derailment device, three of the six cars derailed and two of the derailed cars crashed into the auto plant. Appellant’s locomotive did not derail and he suffered no physical injury from the accident, however, soon after the accident, appellant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and he has not been able to return to work. Appellant brought a suit against appellee to recover damages for emotional distress. The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal was whether a jury could decide whether a plaintiff in a case brought pursuant to the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) was within the "zone of danger" in order to recover for emotional distress injuries stemming from a work-related accident. Because the Court answered that question in the negative, it reversed and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "Everett v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. " on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a superior court was able to exercise jurisdiction to award permanent custody of a child when a juvenile court previously found the child to be deprived and placed the child in the custody of a "willing and qualified" relative until the child turned eighteen years old. The appellate court answered the question in the negative; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. "The case before us is not one in which the principle of priority jurisdiction can be invoked because only one court, the superior court, has jurisdiction to award permanent custody of a child. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals." View "Ertter v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Michael Jason Registe filed an application for an interlocutory appeal. The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was [w]hether the trial court erred by denying Registe's motion to suppress evidence pertaining to his cell phone records. Registe was indicted for the 2007 murder of two men who were shot in the head some time after borrowing a car from Lawrence Kidd. The next morning, Kidd told police that the victims were going to meet someone named "Mike," and Kidd provided Mike's cell phone number. Using this cell number, a detective faxed Cricket Communications, the cell service provider, a message asking for the cell phone records at issue. Cricket reported that the account belonged to "Kareem Penn," an alias of Registe. After cold calling numbers in the phone records provided by Cricket, Registe was eventually identified, his apartment searched pursuant to a warrant issued in part by the cell phone records, and Registe was later arrested. Registe moved to suppress the phone records, contending that under Georgia law, the telephone records should have been considered inadmissible. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the voluntary disclosure of telephone records in this case satisfied the applicable statutes. Under the facts set forth in the trial court's order, the Court concluded that Cricket believed in good faith that disclosure of Registe's cell phone records was appropriate. "Here, Cricket received information directly from police that its records could help identify an at-large suspect of a double homicide committed within a day of the request and that the suspect presented a present and immediate danger. This supported Cricket's good faith belief that there was an ongoing emergency, and that belief supported Cricket's voluntary disclosure of its records. . . . Registe's motion to suppress was properly denied." View "Registe v. Georgia" on Justia Law