Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to seven rules promulgated by the State Elections Board (SEB) of Georgia. The plaintiffs, including individuals and organizations, argue that these rules were not authorized by the General Assembly and violated the nondelegation doctrine of the Georgia Constitution. The rules in question include requirements for video surveillance of absentee ballot drop boxes, hand counting of ballots, and the provision of photo identification when delivering absentee ballots, among others.The trial court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the rules and ruled in their favor, declaring the rules unconstitutional and contrary to the Election Code. The court also found that the rules violated the nondelegation doctrine and the Federal Elections Clause. The defendants appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that the organizational plaintiffs did not have standing, as they did not assert violations of their own rights. The individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge five of the seven rules based on their right to vote but did not have standing to challenge the Poll Watcher Rule and the Daily Reporting Rule. The court vacated and remanded the issue of whether one plaintiff had standing as a member of the Chatham County Board of Elections.On the merits, the court overruled the precedent set by Dept. of Transp. v. City of Atlanta, which had allowed broad delegations of legislative power to executive agencies. Applying a stricter nondelegation analysis, the court found that four of the five rules challenged by the individual plaintiffs were not authorized by statute and thus invalid. The Drop Box Surveillance Rule, however, was found to be consistent with the statutory requirements and was upheld. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the standing of the election board member and the validity of the remaining two rules. View "REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. ETERNAL VIGILANCE ACTION, INC." on Justia Law

In November 2020, Ladarion Tijuan Coston and Marcus Yancey were involved in the shooting death of Caleb Simmons during a drug sale at an apartment complex in DeKalb County, Georgia. Witnesses heard the gunshot and saw Yancey and another man, later identified as Coston, fleeing the scene. Surveillance footage captured the incident, showing Coston shooting Simmons. Evidence included phone records, social media activity, and witness testimonies linking Coston to the crime.A DeKalb County jury found Coston and Yancey guilty on all counts, including malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearm possession charges. Coston was sentenced to life in prison without parole for murder and armed robbery, plus additional consecutive sentences for firearm possession. Coston filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Coston's convictions, including direct evidence from the surveillance video and witness testimonies. The court also found no merit in Coston's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as his trial counsel's decisions were deemed reasonable. Additionally, the court ruled that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence, including an excited utterance by a witness. Finally, the court rejected Coston's claim of cumulative error, concluding that he failed to demonstrate multiple errors that would warrant a new trial. View "COSTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers approached David Mickel without a warrant, detained him with guns drawn, handcuffed him, searched him, and transported him to the police station for an interview. Mickel was assured he was only being detained and not charged with any crime. During the interview, Mickel waived his Miranda rights and made statements that the State sought to use against him in a trial for malice murder related to the shooting death of Michael Anthony Thomas.The trial court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing where officers testified they did not have probable cause to arrest Mickel at the time of his seizure. The trial court agreed, concluding that the warrantless encounter amounted to a "full-blown custodial arrest" without probable cause, thus violating Mickel's Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the court suppressed Mickel's statements as "fruit of the poisonous tree."The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The State argued that Mickel's arrest was supported by probable cause. However, the Supreme Court found that the trial court's orders did not allow for meaningful appellate review due to limited factual findings and lack of detailed analysis. The Supreme Court vacated the portions of the trial court's orders concerning the probable cause determination and the suppression of Mickel's statements. The case was remanded for further proceedings to provide additional fact-finding and analysis, particularly regarding the credibility of the officers' testimony and the potential impact of a self-defense claim on the probable cause determination. View "THE STATE v. MICKEL" on Justia Law

Jeremiah Douglas was convicted of murder and aggravated assault for pushing his former girlfriend, Leea Raines, out of a truck, resulting in her death. The incident occurred on November 5, 2021. Douglas was indicted on multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and making false statements. A jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder, with additional consecutive sentences for aggravated assault and making false statements. Douglas's defense was that Raines committed suicide by jumping out of the truck due to narcotic withdrawal.The trial court denied Douglas's motion for a new trial, which he filed and amended through new counsel. Douglas appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury charge on voluntary manslaughter. The trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial was upheld, and the case was submitted for a decision on the briefs.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the evidence was sufficient to support Douglas's convictions for malice murder and aggravated assault. The court noted that eyewitness testimony and Douglas's own admissions provided direct evidence of his guilt. The court also concluded that Douglas's trial counsel was not ineffective for pursuing an "all or nothing" defense strategy, as it was consistent with Douglas's claim that Raines committed suicide.However, the court identified a merger error, as the aggravated assault conviction should have merged into the malice murder conviction. Consequently, the court vacated the aggravated assault conviction and remanded the case for resentencing on the false statement conviction, which had been ordered to run consecutively to the now-vacated aggravated assault sentence. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case for resentencing. View "DOUGLAS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Dereckson Clark, who was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Alton Cotton. The incident occurred on February 22, 2020, when Clark and Cotton had a verbal altercation. Despite being urged to walk away, Clark retrieved a revolver from his car, approached Cotton, and shot him in the head. Cotton died from the gunshot wound, and no weapon was found near him. Witnesses testified that Cotton did not threaten Clark or have anything in his hands before being shot.A Peach County grand jury indicted Clark in November 2020. At his June 2021 trial, Clark was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder, plus a consecutive five-year term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Clark's motion for a new trial was denied in February 2023. He filed a pro se notice of appeal, which the trial court recognized as valid, preserving his right to appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Clark argued that the trial court erred in its jury instructions about the grand jury process and in excluding his prior testimony from a pretrial immunity hearing. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not seeking the removal of a juror with a medical condition. The court found no plain error in the jury instructions and deemed any error in excluding Clark's prior testimony as harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The court also ruled that Clark's counsel made a reasonable strategic decision regarding the juror. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "CLARK v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, and other crimes related to the shooting death of Sean Turner and the robbery of Turner and Stephen Thomas. The crimes occurred on December 4, 2015, and the appellant was indicted on multiple counts, including malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, hijacking a motor vehicle, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The jury found the appellant guilty on all counts except malice murder and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life in prison for felony murder, along with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for other charges.The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred in several respects, and that his trial counsel was ineffective.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions for felony murder and armed robbery. The court also found that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to charge the jury on accomplice corroboration, as the accomplice's testimony was corroborated by other evidence. Additionally, the court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was not violated, as the co-indictee who refused to testify was never brought before the jury. The court also found that any error in admitting testimony about the appellant's alleged gang involvement was harmless.Regarding the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that the appellant's counsel was not deficient in failing to file a general demurrer, request an accomplice corroboration charge, renew an objection to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, or move to exclude evidence of a handgun. The court concluded that the appellant did not suffer cumulative prejudice from the alleged errors and affirmed the convictions. View "FLOYD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Darrell Dexter Scott was convicted in 2017 for the felony murder of Darrius Ware at Johnson State Prison. Scott argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, the trial court made several errors, and he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Ware was killed on September 23, 2014, and Scott was indicted in December 2014. In March 2017, Scott was re-indicted for multiple charges, including malice murder and felony murder. The jury found Scott guilty of one count each of felony murder and aggravated assault, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.Scott filed a pro se motion for a new trial, later retaining Laura Hogue for his appeal. After several changes in representation and procedural delays, Scott's appeal was eventually docketed in the Supreme Court of Georgia. The court reviewed the case based on the briefs submitted.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Scott's conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as a rational jury could have found Scott guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting Ware's unredacted death certificate and allowing it to go back with the jury, even if it was assumed to be an error, as it was deemed harmless. The court ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing the State to cross-examine Scott about the veracity of other witnesses, as the questions were permissible under the circumstances. Additionally, the court found that Scott's trial counsel made a strategic decision not to request jury instructions on lesser offenses, which was not patently unreasonable. Finally, the court rejected Scott's cumulative error claim, as there was only one assumed error, which was harmless. View "SCOTT v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Susan Embert was arrested in February 2015 for charges related to the shooting death of her husband, William “Jake” Embert. She was indicted on June 24, 2015, on five counts, including malice murder and aggravated assault. Her trial took place in December 2019, nearly five years after her arrest, and she was found guilty on all counts. However, over three years later, it was discovered that one of the jurors was a convicted felon, making him ineligible for jury service. Embert raised this issue in her third amended motion for a new trial, which the trial court granted based on the juror’s ineligibility.The trial court then dismissed the case on constitutional speedy trial grounds, determining that the December 2019 trial was void due to the ineligible juror, and thus did not count for the speedy trial calculation. The court found that the delay from Embert’s arrest to the present exceeded nine years, violating her constitutional right to a speedy trial. The trial court attributed most of the delay to Embert but concluded that the presumptive prejudice from the nine-year delay warranted dismissal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred in finding the December 2019 trial void for speedy trial purposes. The court clarified that a trial with an ineligible juror results in a voidable verdict, not a void trial. Consequently, the December 2019 trial should be considered for the speedy trial analysis. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s dismissal order and remanded the case for reconsideration of the speedy trial analysis, instructing the trial court to reweigh the factors using the correct factual and legal analysis. View "THE STATE v. EMBERT" on Justia Law

Kierra Dates filed a lawsuit against the City of Atlanta after her minor son was injured by a falling tree branch on City property. Dates sent an initial ante litem notice to the City within the required time frame, claiming a nonspecific amount of loss. Over a year later, she sent a supplemental notice claiming a loss of $1,000,000. The trial court dismissed her complaint for failing to comply with the municipal ante litem notice statute, and Dates appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Dates's first notice was not specific enough and that her second notice was untimely. The court also ruled that the tolling provision for actions brought by minors did not apply to municipal ante litem notices.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine whether the minor tolling provision applies to the municipal ante litem notice statute. The Court concluded that the tolling provision does not apply. The Court reasoned that the municipal ante litem notice statute is a condition precedent to bringing a lawsuit, not a statute of limitations, and therefore is not subject to tolling under the minor tolling provision. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that Dates's supplemental notice was untimely and not tolled by the minor tolling provision. View "DATES v. CITY OF ATLANTA" on Justia Law

Ray Eugene Pollard was convicted of malice murder for the shooting death of Jonathon McAfee. The incident occurred on October 3, 2020, and Pollard was indicted on multiple charges, including malice murder and aggravated assault. During the trial, evidence showed that Pollard had a history of threatening behavior towards McAfee and had been at the scene of the shooting. Pollard's vehicle was found with damage consistent with evidence collected near the crime scene. Additionally, Pollard's inconsistent statements to police and his admission of being at the scene further implicated him.The Baldwin County trial court entered a nolle prosequi for one count and a jury found Pollard guilty of the remaining charges. Pollard was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder. His conviction for aggravated assault merged with the malice murder conviction for sentencing purposes. Pollard filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case on appeal. Pollard argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of cell-site location information (CSLI) obtained without a search warrant. The court assumed, without deciding, that the trial counsel's performance was deficient. However, the court found that Pollard did not demonstrate that the outcome of the trial would have been different without the CSLI evidence. The court noted that the other evidence against Pollard was strong, including his presence at the scene, physical evidence, and his threatening behavior. Consequently, the court affirmed Pollard's conviction, concluding that he did not suffer prejudice from the alleged deficiency in his counsel's performance. View "POLLARD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law