Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In January 2013, Demon Wilson was involved in the shooting death of Desmond Kinnemore in Rockmart, Georgia. Witnesses Cindy and John Bowman saw Kinnemore approach a red sedan, heard a gunshot, and saw Kinnemore fall into a ditch. The red sedan then drove away. Police later found Kinnemore dead with a gunshot wound to the head and a .223 caliber shell casing nearby. Wilson was stopped by police driving a red Cadillac matching the description given by the Bowmans. Further investigation revealed .223 caliber cartridges and a spent shell casing in Wilson’s car, which matched the casing found at the crime scene. Wilson was indicted and convicted of malice murder and related crimes.Wilson was tried in the Superior Court of Polk County, where the jury found him guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder, merging the other counts for sentencing purposes. Wilson’s motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Wilson argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by not allowing evidence of other suspects. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except Wilson’s guilt. The court also found that any error in excluding evidence of other suspects was harmless, given the strong evidence against Wilson. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court’s judgment, upholding Wilson’s conviction and sentence. View "Wilson v. State" on Justia Law

In a special election for Chatham County Commissioner, Jeffry L. Miller, an elector, filed a pro se petition against several Chatham County election officials and candidate Malinda Jane Scott Hodge. Miller contested the election results, arguing that Hodge was ineligible due to residency requirements and her former position on the Chatham County Board of Elections. He also claimed that the use of a QR code on the ballot was illegal and that the election officials failed to provide proper notice of redistricting.The trial court held an evidentiary hearing but did not issue a ruling before the runoff election. Miller did not call any witnesses or present new evidence at the hearing. The runoff election proceeded, and the trial court later dismissed Miller's petition, ruling that Hodge was eligible and that the special election results were valid. The court also found that Miller's petition was moot due to the subsequent runoff election. Miller appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal, citing long-standing precedent that election challenges must be resolved with dispatch before a subsequent election occurs. The court emphasized that Miller failed to seek an expedited ruling or a stay of the runoff election. The court clarified that while the occurrence of a subsequent election does not necessarily moot an election contest, prudential reasons and statutory framework require swift resolution of such disputes. The court concluded that Miller's delay and failure to utilize available procedures warranted dismissal of the appeal. View "Miller v. Hodge" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a medical malpractice and hospital negligence claim filed by Jami Lynn Golden against Floyd Healthcare Management, Inc. Golden visited Floyd Emergency Care Center in July 2016, complaining of abdominal pain, fever, chills, and nausea. Despite a computer-generated sepsis alert, Golden was discharged with instructions to follow up in two to three days. Her condition worsened, and she was later admitted to Redmond Regional Medical Center Intensive Care Unit in septic shock. As a result, Golden suffered necrosis that required the amputation of parts of her fingers and toes.Floyd Healthcare Management moved to dismiss Golden's claim, arguing that the five-year medical malpractice statute of repose had expired. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the repose statute was tolled by the "Order Declaring Statewide Judicial Emergency" issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the repose statute was not tolled by the emergency order.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. It held that the emergency order did indeed toll the repose statute, and that there was no impediment in the federal or Georgia Constitutions for the statute of repose to be tolled. The court concluded that Golden's claims were not time-barred, and that the application of the emergency order to toll the repose statute did not violate Floyd Healthcare Management's due process rights. View "GOLDEN v. FLOYD HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC." on Justia Law

In January 2020, Nelaunte Grant was convicted of felony murder related to the shooting death of Shawntray Grant in June 2018. Nelaunte Grant, along with several co-indictees, was charged in a 108-count indictment for crimes related to Shawntray’s death and other unrelated crimes. However, Nelaunte Grant was only charged with felony murder predicated on armed robbery and armed robbery, not the additional crimes. After a joint trial, she was found guilty of felony murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life in prison. She filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to support her conviction for felony murder.The trial court denied the motion for a new trial. Nelaunte Grant appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for felony murder, both as a matter of constitutional due process and under Georgia statutory law. She argued that the State failed to prove she was a party to the crimes and that the evidence showed only her mere association with a co-defendant, Osha Dunham, who was directly responsible for Shawntray’s death.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence, while not overwhelming, was sufficient to support Nelaunte Grant’s conviction. The court noted that the jury could reasonably infer that Nelaunte Grant advised Dunham about Shawntray’s winnings and whereabouts, hatched a plan with Dunham to rob Shawntray, and then attempted to conceal any evidence of her participation in the crimes. The court also rejected Nelaunte Grant’s argument that the State failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than her guilt, finding that the jury was authorized to reject as unreasonable the hypothesis that she "innocently" communicated information about Shawntray’s winnings and whereabouts to Dunham and later made false statements to investigators out of fear. View "GRANT v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Edward Tavarez was convicted for malice murder and other offenses related to the shooting of Travis Ridley during a supposed drug deal. The indictment charged Tavarez with malice murder, three counts of felony murder, criminal solicitation, two counts of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Tavarez was found guilty of all charges against him and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for malice murder, among other sentences for the remaining charges.Tavarez appealed his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to hearsay testimony by a detective that bolstered the account of a key witness. He also argued that the trial court erred by conducting the trial while his legs were shackled, forcing him to choose between not participating in bench conferences or the jury seeing him in these restraints.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that Tavarez failed to show that any deficient performance of counsel in failing to object to the detective’s testimony prejudiced his defense. The court also found that Tavarez failed to preserve his claim about the shackling itself, and he has not shown that he was excluded from any particular bench conference at which he had a right to be present. View "TAVAREZ v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal from an in rem civil-asset-forfeiture proceeding against over $1 million held in various bank accounts, real property, and other property. The State alleges that the property was used, intended for use, or constituted the proceeds derived from the commission of numerous crimes related to the theft, purchase, and sale of catalytic converters and other regulated metal property. The appellants, Garrett Smith, Stacey Smith, SmithCo Recycling, LLC, and SmithCo Transfer, LLC, claimed to be the owners of the seized property and moved to dismiss the complaint.The appellants argued that the trial court had failed to timely hold a bench trial or order a continuance, in violation of OCGA § 9-16-12 (f), and that the State had failed to allege the essential elements of a crime, in violation of OCGA § 916-12 (a). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to address three questions. The court concluded that the appellants are estopped from arguing on appeal that the date SmithCo Transfer filed its answer was not equivalent to the date it was served with the complaint. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely hold a bench trial or continue the trial under OCGA § 9-16-12 (f). The court also held that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the second amended complaint adequately alleged the essential elements of theft by taking, as required by OCGA § 9-16-12 (a). The court reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion holding otherwise. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "SMITH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In October 2022, Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Gwinnett County, challenging a 2015 county ordinance regulating "Adult Establishments." Starship, which owns two stores in Gwinnett County, had previously filed a similar lawsuit in 2017, which it voluntarily dismissed. The county, however, maintained its counterclaim, and the trial court granted the county a permanent injunction restraining Starship from "regularly making more than 100 sexual devices available for sale" at each of its locations. Starship appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of a permanent injunction against Starship.In the second lawsuit, Starship invoked a constitutional amendment that waives sovereign immunity for certain lawsuits, including lawsuits against a county for declaratory judgment and related injunctive relief. The trial court dismissed Starship’s lawsuit, holding that it was barred by sovereign immunity and by res judicata. Starship appealed to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia due to the novel constitutional question involved.The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that although the constitutional waiver of sovereign immunity applied to Starship’s lawsuit, the suit was barred by res judicata. The court found that Starship's lawsuit sought relief from the county's prospective acts of enforcement, which will occur after January 1, 2021, and therefore the county’s sovereign immunity was waived under the constitutional amendment. However, the court also found that the lawsuit was barred by res judicata because the constitutional matters Starship now sought to raise could have been raised in the previous lawsuit. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the lawsuit. View "STARSHIP ENTERPRISES OF ATLANTA, INC. v. GWINNETT COUNTY" on Justia Law

Dallas McCabe and Akhemu Dunston were convicted for felony murder and criminal attempt to sell marijuana in connection with the shooting death of Joseph Jackson. The crimes occurred on July 16, 2019, and the two were indicted on March 10, 2021, for malice murder, three counts of felony murder, and one count each of criminal attempt to commit robbery by force, criminal attempt to sell marijuana, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After a jury trial, McCabe and Dunston were found guilty on all counts except malice murder and aggravated assault. They were each sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and a concurrent five-year prison term for criminal attempt to sell marijuana.McCabe and Dunston appealed their convictions, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdicts and that the trial court erred by denying their motion for mistrial based on juror misconduct. McCabe separately contended that the trial court erred by denying his request to strike jurors for misconduct and that trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. Dunston separately contended that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury more fully on proximate cause and in failing to sever his trial from McCabe’s. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions. View "DUNSTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Nicholas Bernard Head, who was convicted for malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Quintavia Wade. Head argued that his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment were violated when the State read into evidence prior testimony given about the murder weapon by Emily Bagwell, the State’s firearms expert. He also claimed that the trial court committed plain error in allowing another firearms examiner, Kyle Wheelus, to testify as a “verifier” of Bagwell’s analysis about the bullet recovered in Wade’s autopsy.Head was initially indicted for malice murder and other crimes in connection with Wade’s death in 2018. That indictment was nolle prossed. In 2021, a Clarke County grand jury indicted Head for the same crimes. The jury acquitted Head of the counts involving Williams and found him guilty on all remaining counts. The trial court sentenced Head to serve life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder and consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling fifteen years for two of the weapons charges. Head filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.In the Supreme Court of Georgia, the court concluded that even if there was error with regard to the admission of Bagwell’s prior testimony about the murder weapon, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence against Head, including the testimony of two police officers who witnessed the shooting. The court also found no plain error in allowing Wheelus’s testimony as it was based on his own ballistics analysis. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "HEAD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Shanadore Harmon and Jermaz Lawson had an argument that escalated into a physical fight. During the altercation, Harmon fired a gun into the car Lawson was driving, killing Brittany Trantham, a passenger in the vehicle. Harmon was subsequently charged with malice murder of Trantham, aggravated assault of Lawson, and three firearms offenses. A Richmond County grand jury returned an indictment on all counts, and Harmon was found guilty by a jury trial.Harmon's conviction and sentencing were upheld by the trial court, despite multiple amendments to his motion for a new trial. Harmon appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of Trantham’s murder or the related firearms offenses, that the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict on the aggravated assault and firearm offense related to Lawson, and that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not raise a hearsay objection to the admission of Lawson’s recorded statement to police.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Harmon's convictions and sentence. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support each of Harmon’s convictions related to the murder of Trantham and the denial of his motion for directed verdict on the counts related to the assault of Lawson. The court also concluded that Harmon failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the admission of Lawson’s statement to police. The court noted that even without Lawson’s statement, the evidence against Harmon was still very strong, including testimony from two witnesses who saw Harmon stand behind Trantham’s car and then heard gunshots, as well as evidence that Harmon was found soon after the shooting with the gun that fired both the fatal bullet and all the bullets collected from the crime scene. View "HARMON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law