Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty, among other things, of malice murder and attempting to elude a police officer in connection with a shooting death during a failed drug deal and a subsequent high-speed chase involving five police officers. The court held that, based on the evidence supporting defendant's participation in a felony drug transaction at the time of the fatal shooting, the trial court was authorized to instruct the jury pursuant to OCGA 16-3-21(b)(2). The court also held that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that defendant willfully led police on a dangerous high speed chase after being given clear signals by five separate police vehicles to stop and therefore, the trial court properly sentenced defendant on five separate counts of attempting to elude a police officer. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to strike Juror No. 7 for cause and the trial court did not err in its jury instructions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant, a 73-year-old, appealed his conviction of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault in connection with the death of his elderly and wheelchair-bound ex-girlfriend. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty of malice murder; because the similar transaction evidence from his ex-wife and his ex-girlfriends was sufficient to establish the required similarity between the charged crime and the assaults defendant inflicted on his ex-wife and his ex-girlfriends, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse two jurors; the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence a letter written by the victim; defendant has failed to provide a basis for providing him with a new trial or having his conviction overturned; and the court rejected defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Wheeler v. State" on Justia Law

This is an interim appellate review of a case in which the State sought the death penalty. Defendant had been indicted for malice murder and false imprisonment. The court granted defendant's application for interim review and directed the parties to address whether the trial court erred in its order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to exclude his statements to law enforcement officers, in granting his motion to suppress his clothing, in ruling that the evidence of his prior convictions would be admissible under OCGA 24-9-84.1(b) in the event he testified at trial, in ruling admissible as similar transaction evidence certain prior acts of defendant, and in denying defendant's motion regarding the State's destruction of blood evidence. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with direction. View "Clay v. State" on Justia Law

EGL purchased 427 acres of land in Newton County, Georgia, for the purpose of constructing a landfill and the Board declined to issue a letter of zoning compliance based on its interpretation that a landfill was not a permitted use under the Newton County zoning ordinance. The court held that the trial court erred in holding that East Ga. Land and Development Co. v. Baker mooted any issue regarding the validity of the process used by the county to enact the original zoning ordinance. The court also held that the trial court erred by relying on parol evidence to provide a link between the original set of maps incorporated onto the 1985 zoning ordinance and the set that was currently located in the zoning office. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "East Georgia Land and Development Co., LLC v. Newton County, et al." on Justia Law

Local residents filed a complaint with the governor against appellants, who were elected members of the WCBE, alleging that they had violated OCGA 45-10-3. Appellants subsequently appealed the order of the superior court denying their petition for judicial review under the Georgia Administrative Procedures Act. The court held that the appeal as to Appellant Roberts was moot and must be dismissed; the appeal as to Appellants Brown and Culver were not moot because their terms have not expired; and that appellants were required by section 45-10-4 to proceed under the Act, and no delay seen here warranted the imposition of the doctrine of laches. The court held that OCGA 20-2-50, et seq. did not create county boards of education and the court had previously stated that county school boards were creations of the Constitution. The court rejected appellees' assertion that the the term "boards, commissions, and authorities created by general statute" should be construed expansively to include any and all such entities created by the Constitution. The court also noted that the General Assembly was well aware of how to include members of county boards of education within the ambit of ethics legislation. View "Roberts, et al. v. Deal, et al." on Justia Law

Stiles Apartment filed suit asserting ownership over a parking area and sought interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit ACC from exercising any control over the parking area. ACC counterclaimed for declaratory judgment, ejectment, and breach of contract. The trial court issued an order granting the request for injunctive relief against ACC's efforts to assert ownership or control over the parking area but denied a request to enjoin ACC from arresting Mr. Stiles for towing vehicles from the parking area. ACC appealed from the order. The court held that there was evidence authorizing the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court rejected ACC's defenses of laches, waiver, and the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County v. Stiles Apartment, Inc." on Justia Law

BB&T brought suit against Borrowers and Guarantors for more than $19 million then due under certain promissory notes at issue. The promissory notes were executed as a result of BB&T's issuance of 16 loans for residential housing development. In Case No. S1161728, appellants argued that the Court of Appeals in holding that no valid foreclosure sale occurred, erroneously relied on its determination that BB&T did not satisfy the Statue of Frauds. The court held that there were no valid foreclosure sales to prevent BB&T from suing on the notes in the absence of confirmation under OCGA 44-14-161, regardless of whether there was a valid executory sales contract which satisfied the Statute of Frauds. In Case No. S11G1729, the court held that, although the Court of Appeals correctly held that none of BB&T's claims was barred by its failure to seek confirmation after the foreclosure auctions, that court did err in holding that the 2008 guaranties did not sufficiently identify any pre-2008 notes and that the 2008 Guarantors were estopped by BB&T's part performance from asserting a Statute of Frauds defense to BB&T's claims against them on pre-2008 notes.View "Tampa Investment Group, Inc., et al. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., Inc.; Legacy Communities Group, Inc., et al. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of malice murder for killing his roommate and theft by taking his car. Defendant appealed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty of all the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt; the trial court did not err in allowing alleged hearsay testimony; because the evidence supported the inference that others could have been involved in the murder, and even defendant himself tried to implicate another, evidence supported the trial court's decision to include a charge on parties to a crime; and defendant's counsel's failure to object to the admission of the investigator's testimony on hearsay grounds could not amount to ineffective assistance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Adel v. State" on Justia Law

In 2007, Sea Gardens petitioned under OCGA 23-3-60 to quiet title to waterfront property in McIntosh County. Appellants appealed from the trial court's entry of a consent judgment purporting to resolve their ongoing dispute with Sea Gardens over title to the property at issue. Because both parties did not in fact consent to all terms of the consent judgment, the trial court erred in issuing it, and therefore the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings in the trial court. View "Allen, et al. v. Sea Gardens Seafood, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for the malice murder of the victim and other related crimes and was sentenced to life in prison. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial and he appealed. The court held that defense counsel affirmatively stated that he had no objection to the admission of defendant's statements at trial and he has waived review of this issue on appeal; there was no likelihood the omission of a specific charge on transferred justification affected the outcome of the trial and the trial court did not plainly err; because the evidence in this case did not show the sudden, violent, and irresistible passion required to warrant an instruction on voluntary manslaughter, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested charge; there was no merit in defendant's assertion that the trial court committed error by refusing to charge the jury on the defense of mistake of fact; and defendant could not demonstrate prejudice in regards to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Allen v. State" on Justia Law