Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to consider whether the Court of Appeals properly stated and applied the law governing accident and proximate cause in a "strict liability" offense. Appellee Shirley Ogilvie struck and killed a seven-year-old boy with her car as she drove through a crosswalk while the child was crossing the street. The trial court had declined to give Ogilvie's requested jury charge on the defense of accident. On appeal, she contended that the accident charge was authorized by her testimony that she could not stop before hitting the child because he ran across the street in front of her car, giving her only a second or two to avoid hitting him. The Court of Appeals concluded that Ogilvie's testimony that she could not avoid hitting the child warranted an accident charge. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Ogilvie's defense at trial was not that she acted involuntarily, and thus without the required criminal intent, where her car struck the child. Her defense was that the act (or failure to act) of another person – the child in running into the crosswalk (or the crossing guard in failing to stop him) – was the proximate cause of the deadly collision. "That is a proximate cause defense, not an accident defense, regardless of how she tried to characterize it." The trial court therefore was not required to give an accident instruction, and the properly charged jury rejected her proximate cause defense. View "Georgia v. Ogilvie" on Justia Law

Appellant Bruce Wayne Hargrove was convicted of malice murder in connection with the 1999 shooting death of Antonio Jamel Jordan and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed. On appeal, appellant claimed, inter alia, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the State failed to prove venue, and that his due process rights were violated by the 12-year delay between his conviction and appeal. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hargrove v. Georgia" on Justia Law

More than five years after he was arrested, John Johnson still had not been brought to trial, so he moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The trial court granted his motion, and the State appealed. Although the Supreme Court held in prior cases that trial courts confronted with similar circumstances did not abuse their discretion in finding no denial of the right to a speedy trial, it never held that a trial court presented with such circumstances always must find no denial of the right. And for that reason, the Court remanded this case for the trial court to "correctly apply the pertinent legal principles and to consider again whether Johnson was denied his right to a speedy trial." View "Georgia v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Thomas Antonio Brown was tried by a jury and convicted of the murder of Bon Joshwa Albright, as well as on four counts of aggravated assault and five counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Brown appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the court below erred when it denied his "Batson" objection to the way in which the State exercised its peremptory strikes in the selection of the jury, and that the court erred when it sustained an objection to the closing argument offered by his lawyer. Upon its review of the briefs and the record, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, Christopher Brown appealed his convictions for malice murder and armed robbery in connection with the fatal shooting of Robert Lovelace. Brown challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt, the admission of certain evidence at trial, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this appeal to consider whether OCGA section 34-9-207 required an employee who files a claim under the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act (OCGA 34-9-1 et seq.), to authorize her treating physician to engage in ex parte communications with her employer or an employer representative in exchange for receiving benefits for a compensable injury. Because the Court of Appeals erroneously held an employee is not required to authorize such communications, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. v. McRae" on Justia Law

In 2002 and 2003, appellee American Home Services, Inc. (AHS), a siding, window, and gutter installation company, contracted with Sunbelt Communications, Inc. (Sunbelt), for Sunbelt to send a total of 318,000 unsolicited advertisements to various facsimile machines operating in metropolitan Atlanta. In October 2003, appellant A Fast Sign Company, Inc. d/b/a Fastsigns (Fastsigns), one of the recipients of these unsolicited advertisements, brought a class-action lawsuit against AHS, asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) (47 U.S.C. sec. 227). At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found that AHS violated the TCPA because it admitted in judicio that it had sent 306,000 unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Finding that violation of the TCPA was wilful and knowing, the trial court awarded the class $459 million in damages, or the amount of $1,500 for each fax sent. The trial court declined to award punitive damages and attorney's fees. AHS appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, finding that the trial court erroneously applied the TCPA by basing liability and damages on the number of unsolicited advertisements sent rather than the number of unsolicited advertisements received by class members. The issue before the Supreme court was whether the Court of Appeals erred when it determined that only the receipt of an unsolicited fax created an actionable violation of the TCPA. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "A Fast Sign Company, Inc. v. American Home Services, Inc." on Justia Law

John Allan Hendry and Sally Frances Hendry were married in 1998, and after three children were born during their marriage, they divorced. In its final judgment and decree of divorce, the trial court awarded primary physical custody of the children to Sally, and it ordered John to pay $2,400 to Sally each month as child support. John appealed, contending that the court erred in several respects in its determination of his child support obligations. While the Supreme Court agreed with John that the trial court erred when it calculated his gross income to include amounts that his employer pays him to reimburse the costs of his family health insurance premiums, it found no merit in his other claims of error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reverse in part, and remanded for the trial court to recalculate his gross income and to consider again the amount of his child support obligation. View "Hendry v. Hendry" on Justia Law

Through interrogatories, a jury determined that David Keever, individually and in his capacity as administrator of the Estate of Henry Keever, failed to prove that he had adversely possessed certain land whose record title was held by James R. Dellinger, Jr. and Frank Troutman. Specifically, the jury found that, although Keever had proven all other elements of adverse possession, he had failed to establish exclusive possession. Keever appealed, contending, among other things, that the trial court made improper evidentiary rulings. Finding no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling. View "Keever v. Dellinger" on Justia Law

Michael Reginald McLean appealed his conviction for felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Perry Phillips. McLean contended multiple issues at trial constituted error for which he petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn. Finding these contentions to be largely meritless, the Supreme Court affirmed McLean's conviction. View "McLean v. Georgia" on Justia Law