Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of and sentenced for felony murder predicated on the underlying felony of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of the victim. On appeal, defendant asserted that he was denied ineffective assistance of trial counsel when counsel failed to understand and challenge expert testimony regarding how far gunpowder could travel and when counsel neglected to request a jury instruction as to whether the felony underlying his felony murder conviction was inherently dangerous. The court held that counsel's strategic decision to not contradict the expert's testimony and counsel's failure to request an inherently dangerous charge did not prejudice the defense. Accordingly, the court found no error and affirmed the judgment. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of felony murder. The court held that the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his custody statements to the authorities was not erroneous where his questions regarding counsel were equivocal and did not trigger any duty on the part of the police to stop the interrogation. The court also held that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion for a new trial where defendant's speculation that error may have occurred, when counsel failed to have the voir dire and opening and closing statements transcribed, was insufficient to show any deficiency on the part of counsel, or prejudice therefore, and was insufficient to show reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dunlap v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant Disharoon and his girlfriend, Defendant McIntyre, were convicted on several charges involving sex with a minor. At issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that no violation of the Confrontation Clause occurred where an expert was allowed to testify about the results of DNA testing when that testifying expert was not the one who performed every step of the test. Because the present cases did not involve facts and circumstances that were controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that it was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause to allow the expert's testimony in these cases. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Disharoon v. State; McIntyre v. State" on Justia Law

Henry Cook appealed the trial court's ruling that he was not a resident of Randolph County and therefore not an elector qualified to vote in that county. The court granted Cook's application for discretionary appeal and directed the parties to address the court's jurisdiction over this appeal as well as the merits of the trial court's ruling. Because a determination of voter qualifications, not clearly linked to a particular election, did not bring an appeal within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "cases of election contest," and because no other basis for this court's jurisdiction appeared to exist, the court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals and did not reach the merits. View "Cook v. Board of Registrars of Randolph County" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to all crimes charged related to the attempted armed robbery and murder of the victim in the victim's restaurant. The court held that the trial court did not violate defendant's due process rights by sentencing him to life without parole. The court rejected defendant's contention that because he had just turned 20-years-old when he committed the crime, his sentence of life without parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for felony murder with the underlying felony being aggravated assault and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. Since it was not necessary in this case to instruct the jury on no duty to retreat in conjunction with defendant's sole defense of justification, the first prong of the State v. Kelly "plain error test" was not met. The court also held that the trial court did not err by accepting the jury's verdict where the jury was properly instructed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

In 2008, mother filed a petition for modification of custody and child support. After denying father's motion to dismiss for lack of venue, the trial court granted temporary physical custody of the child to mother in 2008 and permanent physical custody and child support in 2011. The court held that since there was evidence that supported the trial court's determination that father did not change his county of residence and was a resident of Cherokee County when mother filed her modification, the trial court did not misapply the law. Since there was evidence to support the trial court's award of custody of the child to one fit parent over the other fit parent, the court could not say that the trial court abused its discretion. Finally, to the extent that Harris v. Williams held that OCGA 19-9-3(g) did not authorize an award of attorney fees in an action seeking modification of child custody, it was overruled. Since mother's petition for modification of child custody did not fall within the parameters of OCGA 19-6-2(a) and fell within OCGA 19-9-3(g), the trial court's grant of attorney fees was pursuant to OCGA 19-9-3(g) and the court need not remand the case to the trial court for clarification of the statutory basis of its award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Viskup v. Viskup" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of the victim. Defendant challenged his conviction on multiple grounds: that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; that the prosecutor made improper statements in closing argument; that the trial court failed to cure the prejudice resulting from the prosecutor's improper statements; that a witness's immunity agreement was improperly sent to the jury during deliberations; that the trial court twice delivered improper Allen charges to the jury; that the trial court provided incomplete instructions regarding aggravated assault and the defense of alibi; that the trial court rendered ineffective assistance; and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. The court found the challenges were without merit and affirmed the judgment. View "Scott v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for the malice murder of the victim, an alternative count of felony murder during the commission of aggravated assault, and the aggravated assault and battery of the victim's sister. After a jury trial, defendant was acquitted of malice murder and found guilty of the remaining counts. A motion for new trial was denied, but the trial court vacated the sentence for aggravated assault pursuant to a concession by the state. The court rejected defendant's claims on appeal that the felony murder count on the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the predicate offense of aggravated assault; that the trail court erred in admitting evidence of a similar transaction; and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reed v. State" on Justia Law

Wife and husband were married in 1998 and wife filed a complaint for divorce in 2008. The parties resolved all issues by agreement except the disposition of certain real property which was purchased by wife prior to the marriage. In 2005, wife transferred the property into a family trust for the benefit of her three children. Considering the lack of any evidence of the value of the maintenance work performed by husband, the testimony of wife that he was paid for this work, the fact that husband used a portion of the property rent-free as a commercial recording studio, and the fact that the property paid for the mortgage through its own rents, the trial court had evidentiary support for its finding that any increased value in the property attributable to husband's contributions and the expenditure of marital funds was nominal. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion to divide the marital property equitably. View "Pina v. Pina" on Justia Law