Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jonathan Scott appealed his convictions for malice murder and other offenses in relation to the 2016 shooting death of Gerald Daniels. Daniels sold drugs out of his apartment; Scott, a convicted felon, also lived in the same apartment complex. Scott went to Daniels’s apartment and purchased 3.5 grams of marijuana. Scott returned sometime later, complaining that Daniels had shorted him on the weight. Scott asked for more marijuana to make up for the alleged shortage on weight, and Daniels agreed. Daniels wrapped the marijuana in two small sacks and handed Scott the sacks along with some money. Scott dropped one of the sacks and asked Daniels to pick it up. When Daniels bent down to pick up the sack, Scott pulled out a gun; seconds later, Scott shot Daniels multiple times. Scott argued on appeal the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that there was a fatal variance between the indictment charging him with attempt to purchase marijuana and the evidence presented at trial. Scott also argued his trial counsel was ineffective. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed because it found the trial evidence was sufficient to establish Scott’s guilt, and Scott did not establish that he was affected by any variance or that his trial counsel was ineffective. View "Scott v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant Richard “Paul” Harrison was tried on charges of murder and felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Dewey Johnson, but the trial ended in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Appellant was retried in 2011 before another jury and found guilty of murder and felony murder. He was sentenced to life in prison; his amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed. Appellant asserted five enumerations of error: four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a merger error in sentencing. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence on the malice murder count. The felony murder conviction and sentence the trial court erroneously imposed and then purported to “merge” with the malice murder conviction were vacated as a matter of law. View "Harrison v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Vraimone Parker appealed his convictions for malice murder and other offenses, following the shooting death of his aunt’s boyfriend, Kwame Chubbs, and the non-fatal shooting of his aunt, Eva Robinson. At trial, the jury rejected Parker’s defense that he was not guilty by reason of insanity and also rejected the option of finding him guilty but mentally ill. Parker argued on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial after a detective commented on Parker’s silence; (2) failing to grant a mistrial after the trial court’s own expert witness testified that Parker knew what he was doing at the time of the shooting; and (3) imposing a discovery sanction that precluded Parker’s expert witness from offering particular testimony. He also argued his trial counsel was ineffective in handling issues related to Parker’s status as a convicted felon. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for mistrial; Parker did not show harmful error as a result of the discovery sanction; and Parker did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any deficient performance of counsel, even where counsel’s performance was considered along with the effect of the discovery sanction. View "Parker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jennifer Long was convicted of malice murder and first-degree child cruelty in connection with the death of her 18- month-old daughter, Alexis. After they could not conceive a child, Appellant and her husband, Timothy Long, worked with the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) to adopt a child. Alexis was born in June 2010, and came to live with the Longs in Columbus around June 2011, after her biological mother died and her biological father surrendered his parental rights. Between June and November, DFCS case managers visited the Longs’ home about every two weeks to check on Alexis, and the Longs took her for regular checkups by her pediatrician. The Longs adopted Alexis in November 2011. After that, DFCS stopped its visits, and the Longs missed Alexis’s scheduled 90-day pediatrician checkup in January 2012. One day after church, Alexis ate and played around the church. On the way home, Alexis became a little fussy. When they got home and Appellant took Alexis out of her car seat, Alexis had a tantrum, and Appellant took the child into the house to change her diaper. While he was at the car, Timothy heard a loud noise that sounded like furniture being moved; the noise seemed to come from the direction of Alexis’s room. Alexis was lying on the floor of her room, and it looked like she had vomit in her mouth. She was taken to the hospital and pronounced brain dead the next day, having suffered from blunt force trauma. On appeal, Appellant contended the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions and that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions. View "Long v. Georgia" on Justia Law

James Robinson was convicted by jury of the felony murder of four-year-old Lalia Hawthorne and of other crimes committed against Lalia and her younger sister, N. H. Lalia was found unresponsive at her home. Taken to the hospital, doctors initially suspected that Lalia had been infected with meningococcemia. The medical examiner, who found extensive bruising on Lalia’s body, determined that the actual cause of her death was blunt force injury to the abdomen. At trial, the medical examiner testified that internal lacerations can cause a child to appear ill and lethargic and can lead to nausea, vomiting, and a fatal loss in blood pressure. On appeal, Robinson contended the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. He also argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he committed a prior act of violence upon Summer Sanchez, his then-girlfriend and the mother of the two victims, and by allowing an expert witness to testify to an ultimate issue in the case. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated Robinson’s conviction for Count 9, one of his convictions for cruelty to children in the first degree upon N. H., to correct a sentencing error, but the Court otherwise affirmed. View "Robinson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Terry Marshall appealed his convictions for the malice murder of Marshal Tucker, the attempted murder of Latonia Patterson, and other related crimes. Marshall contended on appeal that: (1) the trial court improperly sentenced him as a three-time recidivist; (2) the trial court plainly erred by relying on two of his out-of-state convictions in sentencing him as a recidivist; and (3) the trial court committed two merger errors at sentencing. Because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the trial court committed several merger errors, it vacated Marshall’s conviction for aggravated assault of one victim. Otherwise, the Court affirmed his convictions. View "Marshall v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In this case's previous trip before the Georgia Supreme Court, Dijon Abbott was indicted for the murder of Marques Eubanks and the assaults of Latrice Nelson and Jeremy Whitehead; the Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of custodial statements Abbott made before being given Miranda warnings. In that case, the Supreme Court clarified the legal standard for evaluating post-Miranda statements made after law enforcement used a “two-step interrogation technique”; and remanded the case for the trial court to apply that legal standard to Abbott’s post-Miranda statements. On remand, the trial court again suppressed the entirety of Abbott’s statements, concluding that Abbott had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda. The State again appealed. Here, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s second suppression order and again remanded the case, holding that the trial court failed to adhere to the Supreme Court's remand instructions, which explicitly directed the trial court to determine the admissibility of Abbott’s post-Miranda statements under Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), which was adopted in Georgia in Norwood v. Georgia, 810 SE2d 554 (2018) (the “Seibert/Norwood standard”). On remand, the trial court was re-directed to apply the Seibert/Norwood legal standard for the limited purpose of determining the admissibility of Abbott’s post-Miranda statements. View "Georgia v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Innovative Images, LLC sued its former attorney James Summerville, Summerville Moore, P.C., and The Summerville Firm, LLC (collectively, the “Summerville Defendants”) for legal malpractice. In response, the Summerville Defendants moved to dismiss the suit and to compel arbitration in accordance with the parties’ engagement agreement, which included a clause mandating arbitration for any dispute arising under the agreement. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the arbitration clause was “unconscionable” and thus unenforceable because it had been entered into in violation of Rule 1.4 (b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) for attorneys found in Georgia Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the arbitration clause was not void as against public policy or unconscionable. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded after review that regardless of whether the Summerville Defendants violated GRPC Rule 1.4 (b) by entering into the mandatory arbitration clause in the engagement agreement without first apprising Innovative of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration, the clause was not void as against public policy because Innovative did not argue, and no court has held, that such an arbitration clause could never lawfully be included in an attorney-client contract. For similar reasons, the Supreme Court held the arbitration clause was not substantively unconscionable, and on the limited record before it, Innovative did not show the clause was procedurally unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment. View "Innovative Images, LLC v. Summerville et al." on Justia Law

Jesus Perez was convicted by jury of malice murder, armed robbery, and concealing the death of another in connection with the bludgeoning death of Boydrick Powell. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Perez also contended the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his custodial statement and the pre-autopsy photographs of Powell’s injuries and in allowing the prosecutor to discuss the law of conspiracy during closing argument. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Perez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kevin Reeves challenged his convictions for the malice murder of Marquis Stephens and numerous other crimes, all committed in connection with a gunfight at a house party in 2015. His motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal, Reeves argued the trial court violated his Georgia constitutional right to be present by excluding him from several bench conferences and, relatedly, that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to object to Reeves’s exclusion from the bench conferences. Although the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in failing to merge six of the counts of aggravated assault of which Reeves was convicted with six of the counts of attempted armed robbery, it otherwise affirmed Reeves’s convictions. View "Reeves v. Georgia" on Justia Law