Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Namon Wilcox challenged his 2016 convictions for rape, malice murder, and other crimes in connection with the rape and subsequent stabbing death of Suzanne Stilwell. Wilcox contended the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and asked the Georgia Supreme Court to grant him a new trial on general grounds. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Wilcox's convictions. View "Wilcox v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dylon Allen and Zaykives McCray appealed their convictions for malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Chiragkumar Patel. Allen argued on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior robbery and by allowing McCray’s out-of-court statements to be used against Allen, and that these errors cumulatively prejudiced him. McCray argued the trial court erred by failing to ensure that McCray understood his right to be present at bench conferences and failing to instruct the court reporter to transcribe the entirety of voir dire. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed: (1) Allen’s convictions, because any errors in admitting evidence of a prior robbery and McCray’s out-of-court statements were harmless, even considered cumulatively; and (2) McCray’s convictions, because the record showed McCray elected not to attend bench conferences despite being told that he could, and the trial court was not required to order the court reporter to transcribe voir dire. View "Allen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Clarence Casey was convicted by jury of felony murder predicated on an aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Alfred Bradley. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Casey appealed, alleging: (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (2) the trial court did not apply the proper standard in evaluating Casey’s claim for relief on the “general grounds” set forth in OCGA sections 5-5-20 and 5-5-21; and (3) the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence. While the Georgia Supreme Court found was sufficient evidence to support the verdict as a matter of due process, it concluded the trial court failed to exercise its discretion as the “thirteenth juror” under OCGA sections 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 in ruling on Casey's motion for a new trial. The Court therefore vacated the trial court's order in part and remanded the case to the trial court. Necessarily, the Court did not reach Casey's final enumeration of error. View "Casey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In the parking lot of a gas station, a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) game warden told Christopher Thornton to turn down the volume of his car stereo. Thornton refused to comply, and he eventually drove away, dragging the game warden for a short distance. He later was arrested and charged with several crimes, including two counts of obstructing a game warden in the lawful discharge of his official duties. Thornton was convicted by jury. On appeal, he argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions for obstruction because it failed to establish that the game warden was in the lawful discharge of his official duties at the time of the incident. In particular, Thornton argued that a game warden had no authority to enforce the Uniform Rules of the Road, which limited the volume of sound that can be emitted from a stereo in a motor vehicle - in the parking lot of a gas station. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and affirmed the judgment of conviction. Although its analysis differed somewhat from that of the Court of Appeals, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the obstruction convictions could stand. View "Thornton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jim Lowery challenged his 2017 conviction for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Montgomery County, Georgia Sheriff Ladson O’Connor, who was killed in a vehicular accident while pursuing Appellant. Appellant argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his felony murder conviction; (2) the trial court failed to apply the correct standard in denying his motion for new trial on the general grounds; (3) his pretrial statements to investigators were inadmissible because they were not knowingly and voluntarily made; and (4) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Sheriff O’Connor’s character. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. View "Lowery v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in five appeals consolidated appeals for review to address two discrete issues – one related to pleading vicarious liability, and the other related to vicarious liability and apportionment. In August 2009, Keith Trabue’s wife, Shannon, suffered a catastrophic brain injury resulting from pulmonary edema leading to full cardiac arrest within days of giving birth to the couple’s daughter at Northside Hospital in Atlanta. At the hospital, Shannon was treated by physician-employees of Atlanta Women’s Specialists, LLC (AWS), including Dr. Stanley Angus and Dr. Rebecca Simonsen. Trabue and the bank serving as his wife’s conservator (Plaintiffs) later filed a medical malpractice action naming as defendants only Dr. Angus and AWS, although the complaint contained allegations regarding Dr. Simonsen’s conduct and alleged that AWS was vicariously responsible for the acts and omissions of both Dr. Angus and Dr. Simonsen. The complaint did not allege any independent acts of negligence on the part of AWS. At a two-week trial in 2017, after the close of the evidence, Dr. Angus and AWS, asked the court to require the jury to assess the percentages of fault of Dr. Angus and Dr. Simonsen and to apportion the damages between Dr. Angus and AWS under OCGA 51-12-33 (b). The Supreme Court asked the parties to brief two questions: (1) Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled a claim for vicarious liability against AWS based on the conduct of Dr. Simonsen?; and (2) Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that, to obtain apportionment of damages with regard to the negligence of Dr. Simonsen, the defendants were required to comply with OCGA 51-12-33 (d) by filing a pretrial notice of nonparty fault? The Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment. View "Atlanta Women's Specialists, LLC et al. v. Trabue et al." on Justia Law

Former sheriff's deputies Henry Lee Copeland, Rhett Scott, and Michael Howell were indicted by grand jury for the felony murder (and other offenses) of Eurie Lee Martin. Each defendant sought immunity from prosecution under OCGA 16-3-24.2, claiming that his actions resulting in Martin’s death were in defense of himself or others. Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order granting immunity to Deputies Copeland, Scott, and Howell, and the State appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court determined that, in granting immunity, the trial court made findings of material fact that were inconsistent with its legal conclusions regarding the deputies’ encounter with Martin, conflated principles regarding the reasonable use of force by law enforcement with self-defense and immunity, made unclear findings of material fact with respect to whether any or all of the deputies used force intended or likely to cause death, and did not address the facts pertinent to each of the three deputies individually. For these reasons, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s ruling and remanded the cases for further consideration. View "Georgia v. Copeland et al." on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this wrongful death and personal injury case to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that TriEst Ag Group, Inc., the employer of the driver whose truck struck and killed the decedent, was entitled to summary judgment on the estate’s claims of negligent entrustment, hiring, training, and supervision because TriEst admitted the applicability of respondeat superior and the estate was not entitled to punitive damages. The Supreme Court concluded OCGA 51-12-33 ("the apportionment statute") abrogated the decisional law rule on which the Court of Appeals relied in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Accordingly, judgment was reversed. View "Quynn v Hulsey et al." on Justia Law

After Christina and Marshall Wellington were unable to pay a drug debt, Otis Hill shot them. Christina died; Marshall survived, but lost an eye. Hill and Aviance Marshall (“Aviance”), who drove Hill and the Wellingtons to the location of the shooting, were charged with malice murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and related offenses. Hill was convicted of kidnapping and murdering Christina, kidnapping, battering, and attempting to murder Marshall, and a weapons charge. On appeal, Hill contended the evidence was insufficient as to kidnapping. In addition, Hill argued the trial court erred: in using a deficient master jury list; in failing to determine whether a juror was proficient in English; in instructing the jury regarding note taking; in admitting evidence of cell site location information, the effects of cocaine on memory, and witness intimidation; in excluding evidence of the maximum penalty Aviance faced; in instructing the jury regarding the reasonable-doubt standard; and in denying his motion for a new trial on the general grounds. Hill also claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel. But for an error in sentencing, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Hill's convictions. The matter was remanded for correction in sentence: because there was no evidence that Hill committed aggravated battery in the manner alleged independent of the act which was intended to cause Marshall’s death, the count of aggravated battery merged with the conviction for attempted murder for sentencing purposes. View "Hill v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Dakota Swann challenged his 2014 convictions for murder and other crimes in connection with the 2008 shooting death of Shannon Williams. Appellant argued trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to fully investigate an earlier shooting incident involving Appellant or to utilize it at trial and for not discussing the parole implications of the State’s plea offer. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed with Appellant's contentions and affirmed his convictions. View "Swann v. Georgia" on Justia Law