Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Andre Myrick was convicted of felony murder and a firearm offense in connection with the shooting death of Kenneth Bevis. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by denying his Batson challenge as to three prospective jurors. He also argued the court erred by denying his request for a mistrial after the jury heard a police detective refer to statements made by a witness who died before the trial and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by introducing this evidence. Finding no merit to these contentions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Myrick v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Cleandre Franklin was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the fatal shooting of Marvin Wiley. Franklin appealed, contending (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed a witness for the prosecution to testify notwithstanding that the witness violated the rule of sequestration; and (3) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Franklin v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Robert Mitchum was convicted by jury in 1999 of felony murder. Fifteen years later, he filed a pro se extraordinary motion for a new trial based on improper communications with the jury. The issue this case presented for the Georgia Supreme Court centered on whether Mitchum’s post-appeal challenge to his criminal conviction could be properly pursued through an extraordinary motion for a new trial, or whether such claims had to be pursued exclusively through a petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The Georgia Supreme Court determined that because the rights involved implicated defendant’s constitutional rights, and because habeas corpus provided an adequate remedy for addressing those claims, an extraordinary motion for a new trial was not the proper vehicle through with defendant could pursue his claims. The trial court should have dismissed his motion. Because it denied Mitchum’s motion instead of dismissing it, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s decision, and remanded the case for entry of an order of dismissal. View "Mitchum v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Leonard Rodrigues tried by jury and found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the stabbing death of Nathaniel Reynolds. He appealed, contending the trial court erred in letting improper testimony regarding the circumstances of prior bad acts to be admitted at trial. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Rodrigues v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Charles Pennington and Jay Briele were found guilty By jury of possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of an elementary school. At trial, Pennington and Briele requested that the jury be instructed on an affirmative defense provided in the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, specifically, that the conduct prohibited by OCGA 16-13-32.4 (a) took place entirely within a private residence, that no minors were present in the residence at any time during the commission of the offense, and that the prohibited conduct was not carried on for financial gain. The trial court denied the request and, in denying Pennington’s motion for a new trial, explained that the court refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense because Pennington and Briele, neither of whom testified at trial, did not admit doing the act charged, possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and because neither the State nor either defendant presented any evidence that the “active meth lab” in Pennington’s residence was not being used for financial gain. The Court of Appeals affirmed Pennington’s convictions, reasoning that, because he did not admit that he possessed with intent to distribute methamphetamine near a school, he was not entitled to the affirmative defense he requested. Pennington petitioned for certiorari review, asking “What, if anything, must a criminal defendant admit in order to raise an affirmative defense?” The Georgia Supreme Court held a criminal defendant was not required to “admit” anything, in the sense of acknowledging that any particular facts are true, in order to raise an affirmative defense. “To the extent a defendant in raising an affirmative defense accepts for the sake of argument that he committed the act alleged in a charge, the defendant may do so only for the limited purpose of raising the affirmative defense at issue.” Judgement was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennington v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Carlos McClure was found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault based on an indictment that charged him with assaulting Armando Cuevas and Jamie Thun with a lever-action BB rifle by aiming the gun at them. McClure requested that the jury be instructed on the affirmative defenses of justification in defense of self and justification in defense of habitation. The trial court refused to give the requested instructions on justification on the basis that McClure, who testified that he carried the BB gun during an encounter with the victims but denied pointing the gun at them, could not both deny that he performed the act of pointing the gun at someone and at the same time argue that he was justified in performing that act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that, because McClure did not admit to aiming the BB gun at the victims, an element of aggravated assault as charged, he was not entitled to an instruction on any affirmative defense. The Georgia Supreme Court determined a criminal defendant was not required to “admit” anything, in the sense of acknowledging that any particular facts are true, in order to raise an affirmative defense. “To the extent a defendant in raising an affirmative defense accepts for the sake of argument that he committed the act alleged in a charge, the defendant may do so only for the limited purpose of raising the affirmative defense at issue.” The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the trial court erred in failing to give the requested instructions regarding the affirmative defenses of justification, that is, whether the theory of the instructions was supported by at least slight evidence, and, if so, whether any such instructional error was harmful. View "McClure v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Atlanta Botanical Garden, Inc. (the “Garden”) leased land from the City of Atlanta. The Garden wished to enforce a policy precluding the possession of firearms by visitors to, and guests of, the Garden, like Phillip Evans. Evans held a valid weapons carry license under Georgia law and asserted that he was authorized to carry a firearm at the garden under the authority of OCGA 16-11-127 (c). The Garden contended it could enforce its policy based on an exception to the general rule found in the same statutory paragraph. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether OCGA 16-11-127 (c) permitted a private organization that leased property owned by a municipality to prohibit the carrying of firearms on the leased premises. The Court of Appeals determined that it did and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Garden on the petition for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. The Georgia Supreme Court determined this case turned on whether the Garden was indeed private property. Because no lease was entered into the trial court record, judgment was reversed for further proceedings at the trial court. View "GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. et al. v. Atlanta Botanical Gardens, Inc." on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review in Case Number S18G1189 to consider whether: (1) the standard that appellate courts should apply when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a claim under OCGA 51-12-12; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals properly applied that standard in this case. In Case Number S181190, the Supreme Court questioned whether it was error for the appellate court to remand the case for retrial on both liability and damages, assuming the proper standard of review had been applied. Janice Evans fell violently ill and was taken to defendant Rockdale Hospital. What was first diagnosed as high blood pressure was later revealed to have been a blood clot to the brain from a ruptured aneurysm. She and her husband sued Rockdale for medical malpractice. Her damages totaled over $1 million. A jury found in Mrs. Evans’ favor, and awarded her husband damages for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs filed a new motion for additif or for a new trial on the ground that the jury’s damage award was so inadequate as to be inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence. The Georgia Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard when reviewing the trial court’s decision, so that judgment was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Rockdale Hospital, LLC v. Evans" on Justia Law

Roman Hills was convicted of malice murder in connection with the 2014 strangulation, beating, and stabbing death of his live-in girlfriend, Beverly Jones. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in excluding a defense witness’ testimony, and he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "Hills v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Quintavius Hawkins was convicted of felony murder (predicated on criminal attempt to commit armed robbery) in connection with the death of Clayton Smith, criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. On appeal, Hawkins contended: (1) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) the trial court erred in finding that his third amended motion for new trial was untimely; and (3) the trial court erred in denying him an opportunity to present evidence in support of his third amended motion for new trial. Although the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in these claims, the record revealed the trial court erred when it imposed sentence on both the felony murder and the predicate offense of criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, which offense merged with the felony murder for sentencing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated Hawkins’s conviction for criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, and affirmed in all other respects. View "Hawkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law