Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Wendy and Janet Norman alleged that Xytex Corporation, a sperm bank, sold them human sperm under false pretenses about the characteristics of its donor, and that the child conceived with that sperm once born suffered from a variety of impairments inherited from the sperm donor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all but one of the Normans’ claims on the basis of Etkind v. Suarez, 519 SE2d 210 (1999), and Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group v. Abelson, 398 SE2d 557 (1990). The Georgia Supreme Court granted review, and held that claims arising from the very existence of the child were barred, but claims arising from specific impairments caused or exacerbated by defendants’ alleged wrongs could proceed, as could other claims that essentially amounted to ordinary consumer fraud. Therefore, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Norman et al. v. Xytex Corp., et al." on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in five consolidated appeals to address two discrete issues – one related to pleading vicarious liability, and the other related to vicarious liability and apportionment. In 2009, Shannon Trabue suffered a catastrophic brain injury resulting from pulmonary edema leading to full cardiac arrest within days of giving birth to her daughter at Northside Hospital in Atlanta. At the hospital, Shannon was treated by physician-employees of AWS, including Dr. Stanley Angus and Dr. Rebecca Simonsen. Kenneth Trabue (husband) and the bank serving as his wife’s conservator (Plaintiffs) later filed a medical malpractice action naming as defendants only Dr. Angus and Atlanta Women’s Specialists, LLC (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. The issues the appellate court presented for the Supreme Court's review were: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled a claim for vicarious liability against AWS based on Dr. Simonsen's conduct; and (2) whether the appellate court erred 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 Womens Specialists, LLC et al. v. Trabue et al." on Justia Law

Antonio Wallace was tried by a jury and convicted of the murder of Leroy O’Hara. Wallace appealed, claiming: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for new trial on the general grounds; and (3) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in these claims, and affirmed. View "Wallace v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Johnathan Ellison was convicted of malice murder for the stabbing death of Antwane Hyatte. Ellison appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting DNA evidence obtained from a buccal swab performed on him without a warrant while he was in custody. He argued that the admission of that evidence violated his constitutional rights because he did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the buccal swab, and he was not given any Miranda-type warning. The Georgia Supreme Court determined the DNA evidence obtained from Ellison’s buccal swab did not match any of the DNA found at the crime scene or inculpate him in any other way, thus its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court therefore affirmed. View "Ellison v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Upon retrial, appellant Ronald Fisher was found guilty of malice murder and related crimes in connection with the shooting death of Derek Cullins. In this appeal, Fisher contended the evidence presented at his retrial was insufficient to support his convictions because the only witness to identify him as the shooter, David Lewis, was an accomplice. Further, Fisher argued the trial court erred by allowing the lead detective to testify that Lewis was not an accomplice, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Fisher v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Khaleil Barton-Smith was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the 2014 fatal shooting of Alexander Hunter. Barton-Smith appealed, contending that the trial court erred when it denied his request to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense and when it interrupted his lawyer’s cross-examination of a witness. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Barton-Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Desean Subar was convicted by jury of various offenses, including malice murder, in connection with crimes he committed against Justin Bryant, Bettie Stoddart, and Gary Kimber at a 2016 house party. Subar appealed, arguing he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred by admitting improper character evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Subar's convictions. View "Subar v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michael Russell was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of his girlfriend, Christy Waller. Russell argued on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police; (2) the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury in its preliminary jury charge; (3) he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel when his counsel failed to object to that charge; and (4) the trial court erred in failing to merge his remaining aggravated assault conviction under Count 4 into his conviction for malice murder. Russell also noted his sentence contained a scrivener’s error, sentencing him under Count 5 for aggravated assault, when he was actually charged with aggravated battery. Although the Georgia Supreme Court agreed that the trial court committed sentencing errors and accordingly vacated Russell’s sentence under Count 4 and remanded for correction of the scrivener’s error in Count 5, the Supreme Court otherwise affirmed. View "Russell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Chiquita Snipes was convicted of the malice murder of Ty’Qwan Edge, a two-year-old child in her care. She appealed her conviction, arguing: the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial; the evidence presented against her was insufficient to sustain her conviction; and her trial counsel rendered insufficient assistance. When 911 was called, Snipes testified she heard "a loud bump," allegedly from the child falling from the toilet and striking his head on the bathtub. The medical examiner opined at trial that the injuries to the child were not consistent with a single fall in a bathroom, and that there was no indication of natural disease. An internal examination revealed ten areas of hemorrhaging under the child's scalp, some older and some recent. His brain was significantly swollen with minor areas of bleeding on the surface and other denser areas of bleeding and blood clots. There was also hemorrhaging in and around the optic nerves of both eyes, indicating severe trauma to the head. The Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, and affirmed Snipes' conviction. View "Snipes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Patrick Butler challenged his 2011 convictions for malice murder and two firearms offenses in connection with the shooting death of Darryl Walden. Appellant argued on appeal: (1) that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court made several evidentiary errors, and (3) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court determined the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support his convictions. However, the trial court applied the wrong standard in admitting evidence of Appellant’s 2005 felony conviction for obstructing a law enforcement officer during the first stage of the bifurcated trial, and the Supreme Court could not say that the admission of the evidence was harmless. Accordingly, the Court vacated Appellant’s convictions, and remanded the case to the trial court to apply the correct standard and determine whether the prior felony conviction should have been admitted. The Court did not address Appellant’s other enumerations of error at this time. View "Butler v. Georgia" on Justia Law