Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant and co-defendant were found guilty of malice murder and armed robbery, as well as related crimes. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to sever the parties and in denying a motion to suppress the pre-trial identification of defendant by a victim during a one-on-one show-up. The court also held that the trial court did not violate OCGA 17-8-57 by making comments regarding the reliability of the expert witness and of one-on-one show-ups; and the trial court did not err in removing Juror Number 12 and replacing him with an alternate juror. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for a new trial following his conviction for malice murder and other related crimes. The court held that defendant did not preserve his claim that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior drug arrest as similar transaction evidence; an agent's reference to defendant's mug shot from a previous arrest was harmless error based on the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that certain witnesses' testimony bore sufficient indicia of trustworthiness to be admissible under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted for murder of smothering his wife to death and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed after the denial of a motion for a new trial. The court held that the jury was authorized to find that the evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony murder during the commission of aggravated assault in the manner alleged in the indictment. The court also held that the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding voluntary manslaughter was not erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Larry DeFoor petitioned to establish title against all the world on a piece of property in Ellijay, Georgia. Appellants, certain descendants of Millie DeFoor, the record title holder, answered the petition and denied its material allegations. The court held that the earlier denial of appellants' motion for summary judgment was harmless or moot because the court found evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict in favor of Larry; Larry did not need to reside on the property in order to establish adverse possession, he only needed to exercise dominion over it; appellants' assertion that Larry could not "tack" his adverse possession to the adverse possession of his father was without merit; the evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to conclude that Larry met his burden to show ouster; it was not error to grant Larry's first motion in limine which sought to exclude certain evidence; and the trial court did not err in refusing to permit appellants to show that Flint Timber agreed to pay Larry for an easement on the property. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder and the trial court entered an order of nolle prosequi on the remaining counts of the indictment. Defendant subsequently appealed from the trial court's denial of his motion in arrest of judgment, asserting that the indictment failed to allege venue as to each charge. The court held that defendant's motion was not filed in the term at which the judgment was obtained and was thus untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the motion.

Defendant appealed his conviction for malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm or knife during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of one victim and the wounding of another. The court rejected defendant's contention that counsel was ineffective because his counsel erroneously advised him not to testify and because counsel failed to adequately question and impeach the State's witnesses. Accordingly, defendant failed to meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington and the judgments were affirmed.

William J. Mason appealed the probate court's order denying his petition to probate the will of Frances E. Hobbs. At issue was whether the petitioner proved that the will was properly executed or that the signature to the will was in Mrs. Hobbs' handwriting. The court held that, because the trial court did not err in concluding that the petitioner failed to prove that the document was the will of Frances E. Hobbs, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of charges related to the murder of two of defendant's employees. The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in admitting defendant's in-custody statements; defendant's complaint, that his constitutional rights were violated because he was allegedly absent from the courtroom when the attorneys were having a discussion with the judge about the possibility of replacing a juror, provided no basis for reversal; and defendant's contention that the trial court erred when it failed to include certain language in its charge on justification was without merit. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of malice and felony murder, as well as possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. A motion for new trial was denied and defendant appealed. The court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel where defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different if his attorney had offered evidence of a prior violent act by a co-indictee. The court also held that the trial court did not err in giving the suggested pattern jury instruction on mere presence and mere association.

Defendant was convicted of the malice and felony murders of two victims. The felony murder verdicts were vacated by operation of law. The trial court entered judgments of conviction on the malice murder verdicts and imposed two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment. A motion for new trial was denied and defendant timely appealed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder might have been committed in DeKalb County; the evidence adduced at trial and summarized above was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murders; defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct was without merit; similar transaction evidence at issue was admissible; the trial court's statements were not coercive; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit or waived; and defendant's severance claim was waived. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.