Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Earnest Shaw appealed the denial of his motion for new trial after a jury found him guilty of malice murder and concealing the death of another in connection with the death of Elizabeth Richardson. On appeal, Shaw argued the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts because the State’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the State did not exclude all reasonable theories of the crimes other than Shaw’s guilt. Shaw also argued the trial court erred by requiring Shaw to proceed pro se during a pre-trial hearing on the admission of certain evidence and by admitting certain evidence at trial. He further contended he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. Finding no grounds for reversal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Shaw v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Marcus Eberhart, a former City of East Point police sergeant, challenged his 2016 conviction for felony murder predicated on aggravated assault in connection with the tasing death of Gregory Towns, Jr. Appellant contended the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction for two reasons: (1) the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Ford v. Georgia, 423 SE2d 255 (1992), precluded his felony murder conviction; and (2) proof of intense physical pain was not enough, standing alone, to support a jury finding of serious bodily injury as required for the aggravated assault predicate for his felony murder conviction. The Supreme Court determined Ford did not apply to this case, because the predicate for the felony murder conviction was aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Moreover, the State presented expert medical testimony that the repeated tasing of Towns proximately caused not merely the infliction of intense physical pain, but also death. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Appellant’s felony murder conviction. View "Eberhart v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the 2018 election for lieutenant governor, an election in which more than 3.7 million Georgians cast a vote. They alleged defects in electronic voting machines cast doubt on the election in which Geoff Duncan defeated Sarah Riggs Amico by 123,172 votes. To prevail, a party contesting an election must therefore offer evidence, not merely theories or conjecture, that places in doubt the result of an election. "And although the technology our State has used to conduct elections has changed over time, the burden a party carries when challenging the result of an election has not. The Petitioners in this case have not carried that burden." View "Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger" on Justia Law

Following his conviction for the 2014 murder of Janice Pitts, Dewey Green appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. Green argued numerous alleged errors, including that the trial court erroneously excluded two expert witnesses. Because the Georgia Supreme Court agreed the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the entire testimony of one of the expert witnesses, Sean Alexander, for Green’s alleged failure to comply with the requirement set forth in OCGA 17-16-4 (b), the Supreme Court reversed. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Lawrence Daddario challenged his conviction and sentence of life in prison for aggravated child molestation for having sexual intercourse with his 14-year-old daughter, which resulted in a very painful and potentially life-threatening childbirth approximately nine months later. Appellant did not dispute having sexual intercourse with his daughter, but claims he committed only child molestation, not aggravated child molestation, because aggravated child molestation required an act that “physically injures” the child, and pregnancy and childbirth usually are not considered to be physical injuries. He also claimed his aggravated child molestation conviction violated due process, because the statute is unconstitutionally vague regarding whether an act of child molestation that causes a child under the age of 16 to endure childbirth can “physically injure[]” the child. Alternatively, he claimed he was entitled to a new trial on the aggravated child molestation charge due to the erroneous admission at trial of incriminating statements that he made to a volunteer court-appointed special advocate (“CASA”) who spoke with him when he was in jail and represented by counsel in his criminal case without first advising him of his Miranda rights. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected both of Appellant's arguments and affirmed his conviction and sentence for aggravated child molestation. View "Daddario v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2012, while represented by counsel, Ashleigh Ricks pleaded guilty to felony murder. That same day, the trial court entered a conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. Later that month, during the same term of court, Ricks filed two pro se motions, as well as a letter to the trial court, arguing that her plea was involuntary and that her plea counsel was ineffective; one motion asked “to appeal” the trial court’s sentencing order and the other asked the trial court to “reduce her charge to involuntary manslaughter and sentence her accordin[g]ly.” What would follow was a "complicated" procedural history. Ultimately, the case before the Georgia Supreme Court was an appeal of a trial court's order on several motions that were either nullities, untimely or some combination of both. The Supreme Court determined the trial court should have dismissed them. But because the trial court decided the motions on the merits instead, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "Ricks v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2014, appellee Dexter Beard was indicted for the malice murder of Selemon Belai; felony murder predicated on the aggravated assault of Belai; four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon of Belai, Cedric Jeffries, Lee Bailey, and Benny Martin; aggravated battery of Jeffries; and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In 2015, a jury found Beard guilty of all crimes except the aggravated assault and aggravated battery of Jeffries. Following the verdict, the trial court sentenced Beard to, among other things, life imprisonment for malice murder. On October 31, 2018, the trial court granted Beard’s motion for new trial in an 18-page order, exercising its discretion as the “thirteenth juror.” The State appealed the trial court’s grant of Beard’s motion for new trial. Contrary to the State’s "bizarre argument," the Georgia Supreme Court determined the jury’s verdict was not demanded by the “great physical laws of the universe.” Having reviewed the entire record, and considering that the trial court was authorized, as the thirteenth juror, to discount the State’s witnesses and to credit Beard’s version of events, and bearing in mind the standard of review set forth in OCGA 5-5-50, the Court could not say that the trial court abused its substantial discretion in granting Beard a new trial on the general grounds. View "Georgia v. Beard" on Justia Law

Tia Marie Dos Santos entered negotiated guilty pleas in 2018 to felony murder and other crimes. In the same term of court, she filed a pro se motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. The trial court denied the motion as meritless, and Dos Santos timely appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. Pursuant to White v. Georgia, 806 SE2d 489 (2017), the trial court should have dismissed Dos Santos’s pro se motion as a legal nullity, because she was still represented by her plea counsel when she filed the motion. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with direction to dismiss the motion to withdraw guilty pleas as inoperative. The Court also recognized, as it did not in White and some other cases, that had the trial court properly dismissed the motion, the Supreme Court would properly dismiss a subsequent appeal from that judgment, rather than affirming the judgment. The Court emphasized how important it was for criminal defense lawyers not to abandon their clients immediately after a guilty plea, and discussed how to deal with some of the practical issues that may arise from the holdings in White that were reiterated in this case. View "Dos Santos v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Frank Causey was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole in relation to the fatal strangulation and drowning of Lydia Ivanditti. Causey alleged the evidence was insufficient to convict him because there was no evidence placing him at Ivanditti’s home at the time of her death. Furthermore, Causey alleged the trial court erred when it admitted custodial statements he made after he allegedly invoked his right to remain silent. Finding no reversible error as to either of Causey’s contentions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Causey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Sidney McKinney was convicted of malice murder for killing his former girlfriend Deborah Thigpen by beating and strangling her. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by admitting his conviction for a battery against Thigpen committed three months before the murder as well as evidence of his attack on another former girlfriend 15 years earlier. Appellant also argued his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s statements in closing argument that Appellant had previously raped Thigpen. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed McKinney’s conviction. View "McKinney v. Georgia" on Justia Law