Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

William Davis and Trinika Beamon appealed the trial court’s denial of their motions for new trial after a jury found them guilty of felony murder and related crimes in connection with the death of T’arsha Williams and the aggravated assault of Julius Larry. Davis argued the trial court erred in not applying the rule of lenity in sentencing, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in numerous regards. Beamon argued Georgia’s felony murder statute was unconstitutional and that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. Finding no merit to either defendant's contentions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellee James Burns was charged with aggravated sexual battery, aggravated sodomy, and incest. The charges followed the discovery of a social-media message written by Burns’ step-daughter, K.R., detailing an alleged July 2015 sexual encounter with Burns. The message also included the following statement: “And my brother’s best friend tried to rape me.” K.R. later acknowledged that the attempted-rape statement was “made up,” and the State moved in limine to prevent Burns from mentioning it at trial. The trial court granted the State’s motion, concluding “that the probative value of the statement in question is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and is inadmissible under OCGA 24-4-403.” The trial court certified the issue for immediate review, and the Court of Appeals granted Burns’s application for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals followed Smith v. Georgia, 377 SE2d 158 (1989) to reverse the trial court, which had excluded certain evidence of prior false accusations of sexual misconduct from being presented during trial under OCGA 24-4-403. Smith held that such evidence was admissible to attack the credibility of the victim and as substantive evidence tending to prove the conduct underlying the charges did not occur. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review to reconsider Smith, and though the Court concluded Smith was wrongly decided, it affirmed the ultimate judgment of the appeals court. View "Georgia v. Burns" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Broxton was convicted by jury of the malice murder of Edward Chadmon, Oliver Campbell, and Rocqwell Nelson; the aggravated assault of Deion Harden, Falana Coley, and Jordan Turner; criminal attempt to commit armed robbery; and seven counts of violation of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act (the “Street Gang Act”). Broxton’s co-defendant, appellant Daniel Luis Pena, was convicted of the malice murder of Chadmon and Nelson; the aggravated assault of Coley and Turner; criminal attempt to commit armed robbery; and five counts of violation of the Street Gang Act. On appeal, Broxton argued: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective; and (2) the trial court erred in allowing the written statement of a co-indictee to go back into the jury room. Pena contended: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on Counts 27-33; and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no reversible error in either case, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Broxton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this case to determine whether evidence presented at Kiron McKie's trial was legally sufficient under the new Georgia Evidence Code to support his conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. McKie was previously convicted of first-degree felony forgery. In considering all of these circumstances from the point of view of ordinarily prudent jurors, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence of McKie’s prior felony conviction was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. It was the only evidence on this point given to the jury; no alternative explanation was given for the guilty plea and accusation, other than that McKie had been convicted of a felony. Under these unusual circumstances, the Court concluded the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to support McKie’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. View "McKie v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The federal United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia certified questions of Georgia law to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the scope of the “acceptance doctrine” in negligent construction tort cases. At issue was whether and how the acceptance doctrine applied as a defense against a claim brought by a subsequent purchaser of allegedly negligently constructed buildings. Thomaston Crossing, LLC (the “original owner”) entered into a construction contract with appellee Piedmont Construction Group, Inc. to build an apartment complex in Macon. Piedmont then retained two subcontractors – appellees Alan Frank Roofing Company and Triad Mechanical Company, Inc. – to construct the roof and the HVAC system, respectively. In 2014, the complex was completed, turned over to, and accepted by the original owner. In 2016, the original owner sold the apartment complex to appellant Thomaston Acquisition, LLC (“Thomaston”) pursuant to an “as is” agreement. Shortly after the sale, Thomaston allegedly discovered evidence that the roof and HVAC system had been negligently constructed. Thomaston filed suit against Piedmont, asserting a claim for negligent construction of the roof and HVAC system and a claim for breach of contract/implied warranty. Piedmont then filed a third-party complaint against Alan Frank Roofing and Triad Mechanical because both companies had allegedly agreed to indemnify Piedmont for loses arising out of their work. Each of the appellees later moved for summary judgment based in part on the defense that Thomaston’s negligent construction claim is barred by the acceptance doctrine. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the acceptance doctrine applied to Thomaston’s claim, and that “readily observable upon reasonable inspection” referred to the original owner’s inspection. “Without any real claim of privity, Thomaston nevertheless contends that it should be treated like the original owner because it is the current owner-occupier of the property. But doing so would undermine the acceptance doctrine’s foundational purpose of shielding contractors from liability for injuries occurring after the owner has accepted the completed work, thereby assuming responsibility for future injuries. There is no ‘current owner-occupier’ or ‘subsequent purchaser’ exception to the acceptance doctrine, and the facts of this case do not compel us to recognize one here.” View "Thomaston Acquisition, LLC v. Piedmont Construction Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Bowman was convicted of malice murder and associated offenses in connection with the shooting death of Griffin Police Officer Kevin Jordan and the aggravated assault of Officer Jordan’s brother, Raymond. At trial, Bowman pursued an insanity defense. He presented evidence of his military career, which involved combat during his three tours of active duty, and he offered extensive expert testimony concerning his resulting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. The defense theory was that Bowman was in a dissociative state at the time of the shooting and merely responded in accordance with his military training to what he believed was a combat situation. In rebuttal, the State presented experts who testified that Bowman was not suffering from PTSD at the time of the incident and that Bowman’s actions were a result of his admitted longtime use of anabolic steroids; the trial court had its own experts examine Bowman and they agreed with the State’s experts. The Georgia Supreme Court determined Bowman’s arguments on appeal were without merit and affirmed his convictions. View "Bowman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Adrian Golson was tried by jury and convicted of murder in connection with the 2012 fatal shooting of Arlester Jackson, Jr. Golson appealed, claiming only that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The Georgia Supreme Court found he failed to preserve that claim for appellate review, consequently, it affirmed his conviction. View "Golson v.Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Danny Blackmon, Jr. was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of his wife Bobbie. Appellant argued on appeal the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain hearsay statements into evidence during his trial, and that in its order denying his motion for new trial, the court improperly relied on facts that were not in evidence. The Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to either of those claims and affirmed. View "Blackmon v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Development Authority of Cobb County passed a resolution in May 2018 to issue $35 million in revenue bonds under OCGA 36-62-2 (6)(N) to finance a retail development in east Cobb County, namely, a grocery store. The Development Authority planned to lease the facility to the Kroger Company, which would relocate a nearby grocery store to the newly constructed facility. Cobb County resident Larry Savage objected to the bonds, and the Superior Court of Cobb County denied validation of the bonds, concluding that OCGA 36-62-2 (6)(N) does not authorize the bonds and that paragraph (6)(N) was unconstitutional in any event. The Development Authority and Kroger appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court found the superior court reasoned that additional employment opportunities were not enough to show that the new grocery store was “essential” to “the development of trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities.” Further, the superior court said that the additional employment opportunities at the new grocery store in any event were not the sort of “employment opportunities” with which paragraph (6) (N) was concerned. The Supreme Court determined the superior court misunderstood the statute and the controlling caselaw. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined the trial court was mistaken in thinking paragraph (6)(N) was unconstitutional. The supreme Court, therefore, reversed the superior court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Development Authority of Cobb County v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jesse Rowland was convicted of felony murder in connection with the 2013 shooting death of Mike Whittle. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred in admitting his custodial statements, in making certain evidentiary rulings, and in charging the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rowland v. Georgia" on Justia Law