Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of felony murder and armed robbery in connection with the shooting death of Sean Robinson. Appellant's motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed that decision. On appeal, Appellant asserted, inter alia, the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses by admitting statements made by the victim to the responding officer. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not err in admitting the victim's statements. "The statements were made to meet an ongoing emergency and were therefore non-testimonial in nature." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial. View "Milford v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion for new trial as amended, Dana Gregory McFarlane appealed his convictions for malice murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal slashing of his fiancee Kinaya Schenese Byrd. His sole contention of error was that the trial transcript was incomplete in violation of statutory requirements. Finding Defendant's challenge to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "McFarlane v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Malcolm Holloman appealed his conviction for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault and the denial of his motion for new trial in connection with the fatal stabbing of Robert Calloway. He contended that there were violations of the rule of sequestration; erroneous admissions into evidence of certain photographs, his prior convictions, and a prior incident as a similar transaction; and error in regard to the trial court's instructions to the jury. Finding the challenges to be without merit after its review of the trial court's record, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "Holloman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted discretionary appeal to Haralson County to review a superior court's grant of the writ of mandamus. In 2008, Taylor Junkyard of Bremen, Inc. sought to purchase a piece of property in a residential area. Before doing so, it wanted confirmation that the property had a permitted nonconforming use, so Taylor Junkyard asked for, and was issued, a letter written by the County Zoning Administrator, which stated that the business operated by Trawick "falls under the grandfather clause." When Taylor Junkyard applied for a business license for the year 2009, Haralson County administratively rejected the application, with the stated reason that the business engaged in on the property had changed from the original nonconforming business of "used automobiles and parts" to "metal recycling and metal fabrication," and thus violated the County's zoning ordinance. Taylor Junkyard appealed to the County Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which, after a hearing, rejected the application for a business license, based upon found zoning violations. Taylor Junkyard then filed its petition for a writ of mandamus in superior court, which the court granted, finding that there was no evidence to support the ZBA's decision. The County contended on appeal to the Supreme Court that the superior court erred in addressing the petition for writ of mandamus, arguing that the County Zoning Ordinance provided a means for Taylor Junkyard to file an appeal from the adverse decision of the ZBA, and thus, mandamus was not an available remedy. "When local zoning ordinances do not establish a means by which an aggrieved party may gain judicial review of an adverse decision by a zoning appeal board, a petition to the appropriate superior court for a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy." Accordingly, as no provision of the Haralson County ordinances set forth an available means of judicial review, the superior court did not err in concluding that a petition for a writ of mandamus was the proper avenue for Taylor Junkyard to seek review of the ZBA's decision. View "Haralson County v. Taylor Junkyard of Bremen, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Appellant Melvin Griffin's application for a certificate of probable cause to examine whether the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appellant was convicted of murder and related offenses for which he was sentenced to life plus 65 years consecutive. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently petitioned for habeas corpus, claimin that his right to be present at critical stages of trial had been violated when the trial judge questioned a juror during the trial outside of his presence. Because Appellant did not object at trial the questioning of the juror outside of his presence, that issue was foreclosed on appeal. Thus the Suprme Court reasoned that Appellant could not raise an ineffectiveness claim against his trial counsel for failing to raise the right-to-be-present issue because he failed to establish the requisite prejudice to prevail on that claim. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of his probable cause application. View "Griffin v. Terry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in "Glass v. Gates" to answer whether the definition of "any motor vehicle" in OCGA 33-24-51(a) continued to be the broader definition of the term provided for in prior case law, notwithstanding the 2002 passage of OCGA 36-92-1. As inmates at the Troup County Correctional facility, Jonathan Glass and Tony Smith were operating tractors when Smith's tractor got stuck in a ditch. Donrell Gates, Glass' detail supervisor, instructed the men to attach a chain to the tractors so Glass could use his tractor to pull Smith's from the ditch. As Glass did so, Smith engaged his tractor's bush hog, causing a rock to take flight and pierce Glass' throat. Glass bled profusely and died later that day. Plaintiffs, Glass' minor son and the executor of his estate, brought a wrongful death and survivor action against Troup County and Gates. The county sought summary judgment, claiming plaintiffs' claims were barred by sovereign immunity. The County asserted that by revising OCGA 33-24-51 (b) in 2002 (effective 2005), the legislature demonstrated its intent to apply the more narrow definition of "motor vehicle" found in OCGA 36-92-1 (6) in determining whether a local government waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance on a motor vehicle. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that the county did not waive sovereign immunity because neither a tractor nor a bush hog could be deemed a "motor vehicle" under OCGA 36-92-1. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the broader definition of "motor vehicle" should have been applied under 33-24-51, and that therefore, the County waived its sovereign immunity as long as it purchased insurance for the tractor and bush hog used by Smith. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals' reasoning, and affirmed by answering the appellate court's original question in the affirmative. View "Gates v. Glass" on Justia Law

Following trial, a jury declared that a Will and Revocable Trust executed by Thomas Hines, Sr. in 2002 were invalid as they were the product of undue influence. Steve and Deborah Davidson, executors of the Hines estate, appealed that ruling. The Davisons contended that the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence did not support the jury's finding. Furthermore, the Davidsons argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence upon which the jury ultimately relied in reaching its decision. Finding no error nor abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decisions and the jury's verdict. View "Davison v. Hines" on Justia Law

In 2008, a Jones County jury found Appellant Robert Danenberg guilty of malice murder arising out of the 1988 fatal shooting of Deborah Penland Lamb. He appealed, arguing that several rulings made by the trial court constituted reversible error. Among the issues, Appellant contended that the trial court wrongfully denied him the right to represent himself at trial. Further, Appellant contended that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence used against him, and denied him the right to testify in his own defense. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion, and affirmed the trial court's decisions with respect to all issues Appellant raised on appeal. View "Danenberg v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Leonard Maurice Drane of committing murder and aggravated battery against Renee Blackmon and sentenced him to death. Initially on direct appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed on a number of issues and held that the evidence for the convictions and for the statutory aggravating circumstances supporting the death sentence was sufficient. However, the Court remanded the case back to the trial court to conduct a hearing regarding the State's use of peremptory strikes during jury selection and regarding the court's exclusion of testimony of a jail inmate to whom Defendant's co-defendant had allegedly confessed during the guilt/innocence phase of testimony. After the hearing, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and death sentence. Defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus in 2000 which was denied in 2009. In 2010, in response to his application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of habeas relief, the Supreme Court remanded Defendant's habeas application for further consideration of two issues (not relevant to this appeal). That same year which the habeas application was still pending, Defendant filed an extraordinary motion for new trial in the original trial court claiming that Defendant's co-defendant had confessed to a parole officer as the sole perpetrator of the murder. This motion was denied, and Defendant appealed that denial to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the "newly discovered" evidence of the parole-officer-confession would not have produced a different result at trial had it been admitted. As such, the Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the extraordinary motion for a new trial, and affirmed the court's judgment. View "Drane v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Sam Green was found guilty of the malice and felony murder of Candy Wright, a separate charge of aggravated assault against Ms. Wright, and the rape and aggravated assault of Leanna Ziel. The felony murder verdict was vacated by operation of law, and the charge of aggravated assault against Ms. Wright was merged into the malice murder count. The trial court entered judgments of conviction on the remaining guilty verdicts and imposed consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for murder and for rape and 20 years for aggravated assault. A motion for new trial was denied, and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant contended that the evidence would have been insufficient if, as argued in other enumerations, certain evidence had been excluded and trial counsel had not been ineffective. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was properly admitted and sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the crimes of which he was convicted. Furthermore, the Court found Appellant's allegation that his trial counsel was ineffective to be unsupported by the record. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decisions in Defendant's case, and affirmed the final judgment. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law