Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

David Mann Jr. was convicted of malice murder and two counts of first degree cruelty to children in connection with the death of seven-year-old Ethan Martinez. Ethan was Mann’s girlfriend’s son. Mann told first responders that two days earlier, Ethan had fallen from a playset and hit his head. A CT scan showed bleeding along the side of Ethan’s brain, as well as brain swelling. Ethan was transported to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where he was admitted with a traumatic brain injury. His other injuries included a circumferential bruise to his penis and scrotum, a bruised back, elevated liver enzymes, and retinal hemorrhaging in both eyes. Doctors eventually confirmed brain death, and Ethan was taken off life support. In his motion for a new trial, Mann argued the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court committed reversible error in multiple instances; and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Because it concluded his claims are meritless, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mann v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jokeera Morgan was convicted by jury of murdering by drowning her two infant daughters. Morgan drowned her daughters in her Chatham County, Georgia home. She immediately called 911 to report what she had done. The responding officers found the children’s bodies where Morgan had told the dispatcher they would be. Morgan confessed to the homicides in a police interview, telling the officers that “while she was [drowning her daughters], she was thinking that she couldn’t believe that she was doing it.” The medical examiner confirmed that the children had drowned and that their manner of death was consistent with Morgan’s description of how she had killed them. In support of her special plea of insanity, Morgan introduced evidence of her history of mental illness, which included severe bipolar-I disorder, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, personality disorder, and polysubstance abuse. Morgan’s experts concluded that her symptoms were consistent with those of mothers who had committed “altruistic filicide,” a homicide that results from a belief that a child is better off dead. Morgan appealed the order denying her motion for a new trial, contending that the trial court erred by: (1) excluding expert opinion testimony concerning her ability to discern right from wrong; (2) admitting police body-camera video recordings of her children’s bodies; and (3) giving an incorrect charge on whether the jury could consider punishment during its deliberations on the issue of her guilt. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Morgan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Johnny Allen appealed his felony murder and aggravated assault convictions for killing Robert Patton. On appeal, Allen argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of events that occurred after the shooting, and by admitting photographs of the autopsy performed on Patton. Allen also argued the trial court erred and invaded the province of the jury by instructing the jury that a firearm was a deadly weapon as a matter of law. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated the sentence for aggravated assault, which merged with felony murder by operation of law, but otherwise affirmed, because the Court determined Allen did not show no reversible error by the trial court in admitting evidence or instructing the jury. View "Allen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following his conviction for the murder of Barry Bullard, acting pro se, Allen Williams appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. Williams argued numerous errors, including: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that he received ineffective assistance from post-trial counsel; (3) the trial court ruled on his motion for a new trial without being prompted to do so; and (4) that several errors arose from an alleged “conflict of interest” involving Williams’ former counsel. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Mary Katherine Smith was convicted of felony murder based on cruelty to children in connection with the death of her two-year-old son Mason “Tucker” Smith. Tucker did not wake following what was described as one of his breath-holding temper tantrums (where he would hold his breath until he passed out). Investigators would later determine Tucker suffered rotational force injuries, blunt force trauma. The child had nine healing rib fractures which may have been inflicted weeks earlier—injuries consistent with being hit, spanked and forceful squeezing. Smith contended on appeal of her conviction that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions, and that the trial court erred by excusing a juror and by declining to give a jury instruction on her good character. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in this case to address whether a detainee who had not yet been indicted could seek to bar his prosecution through a plea in bar on the basis that the statute of limitation for prosecution has expired. The Supreme Court held that a plea in bar was not proper until an indictment has been filed. Therefore, the Court concurred with the Court of Appeals which held Davis’s plea in bar was improper prior to indictment. “Although various mechanisms may exist to challenge one’s pre-indictment detention, including preliminary hearings, motions for bond and, in some cases, writs of habeas corpus, we express no opinion as to the propriety of these remedies in Davis’s case. Here, with regard to the only trial court order before us, Davis sought only to bar his prosecution in the trial court with a plea in bar, not to challenge his detention with a writ of habeas corpus.” View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Keith Williams on 48 counts of sexual exploitation of children after police searched and seized his computer and several disc drives wherein they found the offending images. All counts in the indictment alleged that, on the day of the search, Williams “did knowingly possess and control a photographic image depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” Each count separately described a different image possessed by Williams. Before trial, Williams filed a “Motion to Dismiss Counts 2 through 48 of the Indictment” on the ground that these counts were “multiplicitous” because they all arose from a single criminal act. According to Williams, the simultaneous possession of multiple illicit images in a single location constituted only one offense under OCGA 16-12-100 (b) (8). Thus, Williams argued, the indictment subjected him to multiple punishments for the same offense, thereby exposing him to double jeopardy in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Georgia Constitution, and statutory law. After a hearing, the trial court agreed with Williams, granted his motion to dismiss, and ordered the State to consolidate all 48 counts in the indictment into a single count. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that, regardless of the merit of Williams’s multiplicity claim, the trial court was not authorized to dismiss Counts 2 through 48 of his indictment at the pretrial stage of the proceedings. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Juan Chavez appealed his convictions for malice murder, participation in criminal street gang activity, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a first-offender probationer all stemming from the 2015 shooting death of Ricardo Ovalle. Chavez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to his conviction for participation in criminal street gang activity and the felony murder count predicated on that felony. He also argued his lawyers at trial were ineffective in their handling of his prior first-offender disposition, and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial based on the State’s failure to disclose a witness’s prior inconsistent statement. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to sustain all but one of Chavez’s convictions; the evidence was insufficient to sustain Chavez’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a first-offender probationer, and it reversed that conviction. The Court determined Chavez did not show his trial counsel were ineffective or that the State’s failure to disclose the alleged witness statement violated his constitutional rights, so the Court affirmed Chavez’s other convictions. View "Chavez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Hamlet Perdomo was convicted of the felony murder of Carl Bush, as well as fourteen other crimes committed against five additional victims during a 2010 crime spree. Appellant challenged the evidence presented against him at trial as insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Perdomo v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Clinton Bankston appealed a trial court’s denial in part and dismissal in part of his pro se motion seeking to vacate his convictions and to withdraw his guilty pleas stemming from the murders of five people. In September 1987, a grand jury indicted Bankston for the murders of five people and other crimes that he committed when he was 15 and 16 years old. In 1988, Bankston pled guilty but mentally ill to five counts of malice murder. Other charges were nolle prossed, and he was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences. The trial court denied Banskton’s pro se motion to the extent it sought to vacate Bankston’s convictions, rejecting on the merits Bankston’s claim that his convictions were void. The trial court dismissed the motion to the extent Bankston sought to withdraw his pleas, ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim because it was untimely. To the extent that Bankston’s motion sought to vacate his convictions, the Georgia Supreme Court determined the trial court should have dismissed it rather than denied it on the merits, therefore it vacated that part of the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with direction to dismiss that part of the motion. The trial court order was affirmed in all other respects. View "Bankston v. Georgia" on Justia Law