Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An appeal of Marlina Hamilton’s indictment for the murder of her ex-husband Christopher Donaldson, went before the Georgia Supreme Court three times. After Hamilton was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with Donaldson’s death in 2010, the trial court granted a motion for new trial on the general grounds. The State then brought its first appeal, and the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. After the State elected to retry Hamilton, she moved for immunity from criminal prosecution based on self-defense under OCGA 16-3-24.2. In connection with that motion, Hamilton also requested that the trial court admit into evidence, for the purposes of deciding whether she was immune from prosecution, the transcripts of her jury trial and of her motion for new trial hearing. The trial court granted that request, over the State’s objection, by written order. The State appealed that order under OCGA 5-7-1 (a) (5) (A), but the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal. The trial court entered an order granting Hamilton’s motion for immunity from criminal prosecution under OCGA 16-3-24.2. The State then appealed Hamilton’s grant of immunity, arguing the trial court erred by considering Hamilton’s immunity motion before retrial; by admitting and relying on the transcripts from Hamilton’s first trial and her motion for new trial to decide Hamilton’s immunity motion; by granting Hamilton’s immunity motion; and by failing to recuse from the case. The Supreme Court held the trial court properly considered Hamilton’s immunity motion before retrial. Furthermore, the Court held that although the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the transcripts of Hamilton’s jury trial and her motion for new trial hearing under OCGA 24-8-804 (b) (1) without making any determination regarding whether the witnesses who provided the testimony in those transcripts were available for the 2019 immunity hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering and admitting that evidence under OCGA 24-8-807. And because there was evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Hamilton was justified in using deadly force to defend herself under OCGA 16-3-21, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting Hamilton immunity under OCGA 16-3-24.2. Finally, the Court held the trial court properly rejected the State’s motion to recuse. View "Georgia v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

In 2016, a jury found Devin Sawyer guilty of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Michael Weeks, Jr. Sawyer appeals, contending that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance because counsel: (1) did not object to a witness’ purported comments on Sawyer’s credibility; (2) did not object to testimony that allegedly placed Sawyer’s character into evidence; and (3) did not object to hearsay testimony involving statements made by Weeks’ mother. Because the Georgia Supreme Court determined that Sawyer’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance to Sawyer, it affirmed his conviction. View "Sawyer v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Omari Smith was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of T’Shanerka Smith (no relation). On appeal, Smith contended the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a separate trial; that trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to the court’s jury charge on conflicts in testimony; and that the trial court erred in denying Smith’s motion for a continuance of the hearing on his motion for new trial. The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and therefore affirmed Smith’s convictions. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Rickey Westbrook appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony stemming from the 2015 shooting death of Harry Wells. Westbrook contended, among other things, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence recovered from his cell phone, by denying his motion to suppress a witness’s identification of him during a photographic lineup, and by ruling that the recording of his call from jail to a friend was admissible. Concluding that Westbrook’s contentions were without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Westbrook v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Matthew Ragsdale filed this personal injury action against the Georgia Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) after he was injured during an October 31, 2014 motor vehicle accident that occurred when Ross Singleton, the driver of another vehicle, fled from law enforcement. Ragsdale sent an ante litem notice to the Department of Administrative Services (“DOAS”) on December 3, 2014. The notice provided on that date failed to include all the information required by OCGA 50-21-26 (a) (5). Ragsdale filed suit, but dismissed this initial filing based on the deficiency of his first ante litem notice. Thereafter, in March 2017, Ragsdale sent a second ante litem notice to DOAS. Ragsdale then renewed the action, and [DPS] filed its motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that the March 2017 ante litem notice was untimely. In response, Ragsdale argued that because he was the victim of Singleton’s crime, the time for filing the ante litem notice had been tolled “from the date of the commission of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action in tort until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated” pursuant to OCGA 9-3-99. The trial court agreed and denied the motion to dismiss in a single-sentence order, citing Ragsdale's arguments in response to the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of DPS’s motion to dismiss, following cases in which that court had previously “determined that limitation period tolling statutes apply to the period for filing ante litem notice as well as for filing suit.” The Georgia Supreme Court found the Georgia Tort Claims Act's ante litem notice period was not subject to tolling under OCGA 9-3-99. View "Dept. of Public Safety v. Ragsdale" on Justia Law

After a 2009 jury trial, Damon Bamberg and his mother, Sonya Bamberg, were convicted of murder and other offenses arising out of the shooting death of Damon’s ex-wife, Allison Nicole “Nikki” Bamberg. They appealed, claiming error in the reconstruction of a missing transcript of the first day of trial and in the denial of their motions to reopen the evidence to submit a transcript of a “true crime” television show. In addition, Damon claimed the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and the admission of a statement made by Sonya was made in error. Sonya claimed the trial court impermissibly commented on the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "Bamberg v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2016, Priscilla Savoy, individually and as executor of her mother’s estate, filed suit against her sisters Eleanor Bowen and Margaret Innocenti (collectively “defendants”) contending that they colluded to appropriate funds from their mother’s estate for their own use. The defendants were served with the summons and complaint on June 20 and 22, 2016. On July 20, 2016, the defendants filed in the trial court a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was supported by a sworn affidavit executed by Bowen denying the factual allegations raised in the complaint. When the defendants did not answer the complaint within 30 days of service, as required by OCGA § 9-11-12 (a), the case “automatically [became] in default,” OCGA 9-11-55 (a). The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to address the following question: To show a proper case for opening default under OCGA 9-11-55 (b), must the defendant provide a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a timely answer? The Court answered that question in the negative and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals which held to the contrary. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bowen v. Savoy" on Justia Law

“Under longstanding Georgia law,” when a client sues his former attorney for legal malpractice, the client impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege with respect to the underlying matter or matters to the extent necessary for the attorney to defend against the legal malpractice claim. The issue this case presented for the Georgia Supreme Court’s review was whether the implied waiver extended to the client’s communications with other attorneys who represented the client with respect to the same underlying matter, but whom the client chose not to sue. The trial court held that the waiver did not extend to such other counsel and therefore denied a motion for a protective order in this legal malpractice case. The Court of Appeals reversed. The issue presented was a matter of first impression for the Supreme Court, which held that when a client sues his former attorney for legal malpractice, the implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege extends to the client’s communications who represented the client with respect to the same underlying transaction or litigation. View "Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP v. Moody et al." on Justia Law

Sylvester Richardson was convicted by jury of murder and other crimes relating to the fatal shooting of Christopher Wilson. He appealed, claiming that the trial court erred when it denied a motion for a mistrial and when it admitted evidence that he was involved in a gang. Richardson also contended he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Richardson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

LaParrish London was convicted by jury of the malice murder of Eric Terrell. On appeal, he argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial; (3) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay; and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective. Upon review, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed London’s conviction. View "London v. Georgia" on Justia Law