Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following her conviction for the murder of her husband, Derrick, Pamela Ballin appealed the denial of her motion for a new trial. Ballin argues that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence that she was the beneficiary of insurance policies on her husband’s life and that the trial court wrongly denied her motion for a mistrial following an improper statement by the prosecution. Although the trial court erroneously applied an evidentiary standard from cases decided under the former Georgia Evidence Code in admitting evidence of the life insurance policies and related testimony, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the overall strength of the evidence against Ballin rendered harmless any error. Further, Ballin’s claim of error with respect to the denial of her motion for a mistrial lacked merit. View "Ballin v. Georgia" on Justia Law

David McGuire was convicted by jury of the malice murder of his mother, Elaine, and for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to the element of malice. Specifically, McGuire contended the evidence of malice was entirely circumstantial, and that the proved facts did not exclude his reasonable hypothesis he was provoked into a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion when the victim shot at him during a heated argument about his drinking, he wrestled the gun away from her, and he shot her as the result of the provocation. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed appellant’s convictions. View "McGuire v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Bernard Bullard was convicted of malice murder, violation of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of John Johnson. On appeal, Bullard argued the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying: a special demurrer, a motion to bifurcate the trial, and a motion in limine. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bullard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The State appealed an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Columbia County, Georgia suppressing two statements that Christopher Rumph made to law enforcement officers prior to his arrest on murder and other criminal charges. The trial court suppressed the statements on the ground that the police had failed to give Rumph Miranda warnings prior to interviewing him. The State contended that the trial court erred in suppressing the statements because, as Rumph was not in custody, Miranda warnings were not required. After review of the record, the Georgia Supreme Court concurred with the State's reasoning and reversed the trial court’s order. View "Georgia v. Rumph" on Justia Law

Appellants Marques Nicholson and Ramon Nichols were tried together and convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the gang-related shooting death of Derrick Linkhorn. On appeal, both appellants contended the evidence presented at their trial was insufficient to support their convictions, and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motions to sever their cases for trial. Nicholson also contended the trial court erred by admitting certain cell phone records, and Nichols contended the court erred by admitting certain social media records. After review of the record and the briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed both appellants' convictions. View "Nicholson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After he was tried by jury and found guilty of ten aggravated assaults, Jason Wilkerson moved for new trial. The trial court granted his motion as to three of the assaults, concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilkerson was guilty of those assaults, and concluding as well that a new trial was warranted upon the “general grounds.” The State appealed, and in Georgia v. Wilkerson, 820 SE2d 60 (2018), the Court of Appeals reversed the determination that the evidence was legally insufficient, and vacated the grant of a new trial on the general grounds. With respect to the general grounds, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a trial court has substantial discretion to award a new trial under the general grounds, but it concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly conflating the standard for the general grounds and the distinct standard by which the legal sufficiency of the evidence is assessed. The Georgia Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the general grounds, and reversed. The Supreme Court noted the Court of Appeals was right to note that the general grounds and a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented distinct issues. But absent some indication in the record to the contrary, "we generally presume that trial judges understand this distinction, and here, the record gives us no reason to conclude that the trial court erroneously conflated the general grounds and the legal sufficiency of the evidence." View "Wilkerson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged in 2016, an anonymous hacker stole the personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates, and health insurance details, of at least 200,000 current and former patients of Athens Orthopedic Clinic (“the Clinic”) from the Clinic’s computer databases. The hacker demanded a ransom, but the Clinic refused to pay. The hacker offered at least some of the stolen personal data for sale on the so-called “dark web,” and some of the information was made available, at least temporarily, on Pastebin, a data-storage website. The Clinic notified plaintiffs of the breach in August 2016. Each named plaintiff alleges that she has “spent time calling a credit reporting agency and placing a fraud or credit alert on her credit report to try to contain the impact of the data breach and anticipates having to spend more time and money in the future on similar activities.” Plaintiffs sought class certification and asserted claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages based on costs related to credit monitoring and identity theft protection, as well as attorneys’ fees. They also sought injunctive relief under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”), and a declaratory judgment to the effect that the Clinic must take certain actions to ensure the security of class members’ personal data in the future. The Clinic filed a motion to dismiss based on both OCGA 9-11-12 (b) (1) and OCGA 9-11-12 (b)(6), which the trial court granted summarily. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the injury plaintiffs alleged they suffered was legally cognizable. Because the Court of Appeals held otherwise in affirming dismissal of plaintiffs’ negligence claims, the Supreme Court reversed that holding. Because that error may have affected the Court of Appeals’s other holdings, the Court vacated those other holdings and remanded the case. View "Collins et al. v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic, P.A." on Justia Law

On June 16, 2010, crossing gates were down at a public railway-roadway crossing -- a position that normally indicated: (1) a train was approaching the crossing; (2) a railway was performing maintenance; or (3) they were malfunctioning. As Marvin Johnson, Jr. approached the railroad crossing driving his 28-foot-long truck with attached dumpster, he saw that the gates were down but cars were driving around the gates and over the crossing. Johnson followed suit, driving around the crossing gates into the path of an oncoming train on which Winford Hartry was serving as engineer. Hartry was injured as a result of the collision. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to consider whether Winford Hartry’s claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) was precluded by regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”). Because the Supreme Court concluded that FRSA and its regulations did not preclude Hartry’s FELA claim, it affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Hartry et al." on Justia Law

Wayan Jordan was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the fatal shooting of Craigory Burch. Jordan appealed, contending that the State failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain his convictions, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, and that the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence of gang activity. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed Jordan’s convictions. View "Jordan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Devontae Carter was tried by jury and convicted of the malice murder of Dexter Lampkin, and of the aggravated assault of Gregory Lampkin, by shooting them with a handgun. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. After review of the evidence presented at trial, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Carter’s convictions. View "Carter v. Georgia" on Justia Law