Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involved Cobb Hospital, Inc.'s and Kennestone Hospital, Inc.'s (collectively, “Wellstar”) challenge to the decision by the Georgia Department of Community Health (“DCH”) to grant Emory University Hospital Smyrna (“Emory”) a new certificate of need (“CON”) to renovate a hospital that Emory had recently acquired. After DCH made an initial decision granting the CON, Wellstar appealed to the CON Appeal Panel. The panel’s hearing officer affirmed the decision, ruling that as a matter of law he could not consider Wellstar’s arguments regarding the validity of Emory’s existing CON, and that he would not allow Wellstar to present evidence related to those arguments. Wellstar then appealed the hearing officer’s decision to the DCH Commissioner, allegedly arguing among other things that the decision violated Wellstar’s constitutional right to due process. The Commissioner affirmed the hearing officer’s decision without ruling on the constitutional claim. In Division 2 of its opinion in this case, the Georgia Supreme Court determined the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the constitutional due process claim enumerated by Wellstar was not preserved for appellate review because it was not ruled on during the administrative proceeding that led to the filing of this case in the trial court. The Supreme Court thus granted Wellstar’s petition for a writ of certiorari to address that issue, reversed the Court of Appeals’s opinion, and remanded for that court to reconsider Wellstar’s constitutional claim. View "Cobb Hospital v. Department of Community Health et al." on Justia Law

Franklin Gebhardt was found guilty of malice murder and various other offenses in connection with the 1983 torture and stabbing death of Tim Coggins. On appeal, Gebhardt contended: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his murder conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying Gebhardt’s pre-trial plea in bar with respect to the charges of aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and concealing the death of another; (3) the trial court inappropriately commented on the evidence at trial; and (4) the trial court committed several evidentiary errors. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gebhardt v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jason Dozier was tried by jury and convicted of murder with malice aforethought, armed robbery, and other crimes in connection with a home invasion that led to the 2012 fatal shooting of Nicolas Jackson. Dozier appealed, claiming only that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in this claim of error, and affirmed. View "Dozier v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Juan Ramirez was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the 2014 shooting death of Justin Acevedo. Ileanna Martinez and Itzel Jimenez (Acevedo’s girlfriend and also a friend of a Sandra Boyzo, a mutual acquaintance of both Martinez and Jimenez) exchanged a series of heated Facebook messages regarding a dispute between Martinez and Jimenez. At the center of the dispute was Martinez’s alleged insult of Jimenez’s friend Boyzo, and the result of these messages was that Jimenez planned to meet Martinez at Martinez’s apartment to fight. Martinez was at Ramirez’s apartment while Martinez and Jimenez sent the Facebook messages, and Ramirez told Martinez that he would accompany her to her apartment “because he didn’t want nobody to jump [her]” in the anticipated fight. When Ramirez and Martinez arrived at Martinez’s apartment complex, they encountered the other group, whose members were standing on the opposite side of the street. At that point, Ramirez told Martinez not to cross the street. There were multiple accounts about what Acevedo said to Ramirez at that point. It was undisputed that in response to Acevedo’s statement or statements, Ramirez fired, and the bullet struck Acevedo in the chest, killing him. Except for Contreras, who claimed that the gun was pointed “directly towards us” when Ramirez shot, the statements of the other witnesses were consistent that Ramirez was instead pointing the gun down toward the street when he fired, and that the bullet ricocheted up and struck Acevedo. On appeal, Ramirez contended his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by withdrawing a request to instruct the jury on mutual combat. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed. View "Ramirez v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Calvin Denson appealed his convictions for malice murder and armed robbery in connection with the 2011 shooting death of Julian Hernandez. On appeal, Denson argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the introduction of an audio recording violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, because the recording contained statements of a witness who did not testify at trial and was not previously cross-examined; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to certain statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed because the evidence was legally sufficient to support Denson’s convictions, the audio recording did not contain testimonial statements and thus the Confrontation Clause did not apply, and Denson failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had trial counsel objected to the challenged statements. View "Denson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Shawn Clark appealed his malice murder conviction for killing Antonio Ellison. Clark did not dispute at trial that he intentionally shot Ellison, but claimed self-defense. On appeal, Clark argued the State failed to disprove defense of habitation beyond a reasonable doubt. Clark also argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach a key witness with prior felony convictions, failing to object to the State’s comments on Clark’s pre-arrest silence, and failing to object to the State’s misstatements on the presumption of innocence. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed because: (1) the jury was authorized to conclude that the use of deadly force was unreasonable under the circumstances (an element of the defense of habitation statute relied on here); and (2) trial counsel was not deficient or, if he was, any deficiency did not prejudice Clark. View "Clark v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Mary Ann Spence was convicted of malice murder in connection with the death of Samuel Miller (“Samuel”), a 16-month-old baby left in her care. In 2011, Spence was staying in an apartment in the Carver Homes community in Atlanta with her daughter, Classie Fields, and Fields’ three children: her five-year-old and one-year-old sons, and her nine-year-old daughter. Jennifer Miller (“Miller”), Fields’ best friend, was staying with Fields at the time, along with her two children: Samuel and his three year-old sister. At around 5:30 a.m. on April 3, 2011, Fields left her apartment and went to work. Hours later, while Miller prepared to go to church, Spence offered to stay at the apartment and watch all the boys, because she recognized that they would be difficult to handle at church. Miller accepted Spence’s offer and went to church along with her daughter and Fields’ daughter. Sometime between when Miller left for church and 12:45 p.m., the five-year-old, who was in the apartment’s living room with his brother, peered into one of the apartment’s bedrooms and saw Spence (his grandmother) and a sobbing Samuel. According to the child, Spence picked Samuel up, shook him several times, and threw him down onto a “hard” bed where he hit his head, causing his eyes to go “to sleep.” Paramedics were called, and despite efforts to revive him, Samuel was declared dead shortly after he arrived to the hospital. The ME found multiple bruises on Samuel’s chest, shoulder, and chin, and noted that his face and head were quite swollen. He determined that blunt force trauma to the head killed Samuel, and that the “tremendous” blows to his head punched a hole in his skull three-quarters-of-an-inch in diameter and caused complex fractures across the surface of his skull. Spence appealed her conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her murder conviction. She also argued the trial court erred both in permitting the State to improperly bolster the testimony of an eyewitness and in not sua sponte charging the jury on the defense of accident. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Spence v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Hentrez Reed was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2015 shooting death of Nigel James. On appeal, he argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in three ways: (1) by not filing a motion to suppress inculpatory statements Appellant made during his interview by the police; (2) by not filing a motion to suppress his historical cell site location information; and (3) by not objecting to the admission of testimony regarding an “affidavit” he wrote and the admission of an accompanying note written by a co-defendant. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Reed v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jacob Jones was convicted by jury for the sexual battery of a child under age 16. He appealed his convictions and sentences for three counts of felony sexual battery, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him, and arguing the statutory sentencing scheme for felony sexual batters was unconstitutional as applied to him. Finding the evidence sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to convict, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict. With regard to sentencing, the Supreme Court concluded that Jones' concurrent five-year probated, first offender sentences were not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense charged. Therefore, the Court affirmed in all respects. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dundell Cash appealed his 2017 malice murder conviction for the 2006 fatal shooting of Euan Dougal outside a Columbus, Georgia nightclub. Cash's sole argument on appeal was the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial based on an alleged violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in rejecting Cash’s speedy trial claim, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cash v. Georgia" on Justia Law