Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Robert Harris was convicted of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the fatal shooting of Kenneth Roberts and the assault of five other men. Harris was jointly indicted and tried with co-defendants Marcus Battle and Jacobey Carter. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Battle’s and Carter’s convictions in Battle v. Georgia, 804 SE2d 46 (2017). Here, Harris argued: (1) his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance for failing to object to certain testimony from the investigating detective, (2) his motion-for-new trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise a "Brady" claim and in not asserting a due process violation because Harris’s conviction rests, in part, on false evidence. Harris also argued (3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for continuance and committed a merger error at sentencing. Although the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in sentencing Harris for aggravated assault under Count 5, it otherwise affirmed. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Kyle Diamond Luke Perry pleaded guilty to the murder of Jeremias Ortiz and other crimes. The trial court accepted Perry’s plea and imposed sentence, including a sentence of imprisonment for life for the murder. Several years later, Perry filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal, which the trial court granted. Perry then filed a timely notice of appeal, and before the Georgia Supreme Court, he claimed his plea was not entered freely and voluntarily. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Perry v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Victor Hodges was convicted by jury of malice murder, robbery, and other offenses in connection with the death of Julie Mae Simpson. On appeal, Hodges contended only that the trial court employed an incorrect legal standard when it denied his motion for new trial on the general grounds. Finding no such error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hodges v. Georgia" on Justia Law

James Rashad Clay was convicted by jury. Acting pro se, he appealed his convictions for malice murder and related offenses in connection with crimes committed against Rashonda Patterson and Joseph Emener. On appeal, Clay claimed numerous errors, but finding no reversible one, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Clay v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Tiquonda Raenell Campbell-Williams appeals her convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault in connection with the death of her boyfriend, Tyress Malcome. On appeal, Campbell-Williams argued the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on proximate or intervening cause, and that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not requesting these charges. Campbell-Williams also argued the trial court erred by admitting a deceased witness’s statements under OCGA 24-8-807. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to give the jury charges, Campbell-Williams did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the witness’s statements. View "Campbell-Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Christopher Sanchious was tried by jury and found guilty of three counts of aggravated child molestation, two counts of child molestation, and one count each of aggravated sodomy and sexual battery involving his girlfriend’s 12-year-old daughter. This appeal centered Sanchious’s contention that certain expert testimony and an expert report were improperly admitted at his jury trial. Specifically, Sanchious argued the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the expert testimony of forensic biologist Karen Turpin, who testified about DNA analysis conducted by, and memorialized in a report written by, forensic biologist Dr. Tesheka Wortham, and by admitting Dr. Wortham’s written report. At trial, Turpin testified that she personally tested the victim’s sexual assault kit, which “failed to reveal the presence of male DNA,” but that Dr. Wortham, who did not testify at trial but whose report Turpin had “peer reviewed . . . [t]o ensure that the analyst ha[d] followed policies and procedures, and that the results [were] correct and reliable," tested the victim’s underwear and comforter, and that both items “contained [DNA] profiles . . . matching the profile[s] of [the victim] and . . . Sanchious.” When the State began to elicit testimony from Turpin about Dr. Wortham’s DNA report, Sanchious’s counsel objected on hearsay grounds. The Court overruled the hearsay objection and admitted the report. To this, the Georgia Supreme Court concurred, granting Sanchious’s writ of certiorari, vacating the Court of Appeals’s opinion, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "Sanchious v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jennifer Clark was convicted by jury of malice murder for the 2008 death of her husband, Donald Clark. On appeal, she contended her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to request that the jury be instructed that it could consider her paramour, Michael Yost’s felony convictions in assessing his credibility. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court determined Clark failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by her trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance, therefore, the Court affirmed her conviction. View "Clark v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Slyrika Arnold was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2011 fatal shooting of Curtis Pinkney, Jr. On appeal, he contended his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance for failing ot object to three statements the prosecutor made in his closing argument. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court determined Arnold failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance, therefore, the Court affirmed his conviction. View "Arnold v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Rodney Gibbs was convicted of the felony murder of Marquis Stephens, the aggravated assaults of six other people, and numerous other crimes, all in connection with a shooting at a house party in 2015. Following the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial, Gibbs appealed, arguing only that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Gibbs’ theory of defense at trial was that he and Reeves acted in self-defense after Stephens withdrew his weapon and fired first; Gibbs also called the victims’ credibility into question by casting them as drug dealers and drug users. Gibbs did not testify or put on any evidence in support of his defense. The parties stipulated that Gibbs was a convicted felon at the time of the incident, having previously been convicted of a felony involving the use of a firearm. As for the convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault, Gibbs argues, as he did below, that the incident was the result of a drug deal gone awry and that he shot Stephens in self- defense. Finding no reversible error, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain his convictions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Gibbs' convictions. View "Gibbs v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joseph Heyward appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2015 shooting death of Frank Wilson. The victim was shot eight times, with most shots entering from behind; Heyward argued on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence to refute the prosecutor’s statements to the jury that a person could not claim self-defense if the victim was shot in the back. Specifically, Heyward claimed that counsel should have elicited evidence that Wilson, in shooting Heyward’s brother Antonio years earlier, was found to have acted in self-defense despite allegedly shooting Antonio in the back. But the Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence that Heyward said would have shown that Antonio was shot from behind actually showed only that Antonio had some wounds to his back; no evidence indicated whether those wounds were entry or exit wounds, or from where Wilson shot Antonio, while other evidence showed clearly that Wilson shot Antonio from the front. Because failure to elicit such equivocal evidence could not have prejudiced Heyward, the Supreme Court rejected his ineffectiveness claim and affirmed his convictions. View "Heyward v. Georgia" on Justia Law