Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jarvis Lamont Milton and Richard Stroud, Jr. were indicted for several crimes, including murder, in relation to the shooting death of Frederick Cade. The case was tried before a jury, and Milton was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder charge and five years in prison for possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime. The other charges were either merged into the murder conviction or vacated. Milton filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.Milton appealed his convictions, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and the evidence presented at trial. The evidence included testimony from witnesses, including the victim's wife and Milton’s girlfriend, as well as physical evidence such as blood samples and a pendant found at the crime scene. The court also considered the conflicting testimonies given by Milton’s girlfriend during the investigation and at trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was constitutionally sufficient to support Milton’s convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court stated that even if the jury had concluded that Stroud was the shooter, the evidence was sufficient to find Milton guilty as a party to the crime. The court noted that the jury had the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses and resolve any discrepancies in the evidence presented at trial. View "MILTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The appellant, Demarcus Deshawn Blash, was convicted for malice murder and other offenses related to the shooting deaths of Jain Marie Williams and Wendell Everett Williams. Blash contended that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. He also argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled his objection to the introduction of his jail phone call recordings and to expert testimony regarding gang language in those recordings.The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to authorize Blash’s convictions, as he and his co-defendants had planned the crimes and he was a party to them. The trial court properly exercised its authority in denying Blash’s motion for a new trial. The trial court did not err in admitting the jail call recordings, as they were properly authenticated and not unduly prejudicial. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert testimony interpreting gang terminology, as it helped the jury understand the specialized language in the recordings.However, the court vacated the sentences for burglary and one count of theft by taking because these counts should have merged with home invasion and armed robbery, respectively. View "BLASH V THE STATE" on Justia Law

In January 2018, Matthew Richardson was convicted for felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Julius Aderhold, III. The incident occurred in a drive-by shooting when Richardson was allegedly upset with Jabari Johnson for his involvement in stealing a gun belonging to Richardson's cousin. Richardson, Johnson, and another individual, Young, were involved in the shooting. During the incident, Aderhold was shot and killed. Richardson was found guilty of all counts and sentenced to serve life in prison with the possibility of parole on Count 1, a consecutive five-year term on Count 5, and 20 years in prison to run concurrent on Counts 2, 3, and 4.Richardson later appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court committed plain error when it admitted testimony of a detective that improperly bolstered out-of-court statements by Johnson and Young, and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to that same testimony.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction. The court held that the detective's testimony did not directly address the credibility of Johnson and Young and thus did not constitute improper bolstering. Additionally, the court found that Richardson's trial counsel's performance was not deficient, as it was not a clear case of improper bolstering, so no reasonable lawyer would have objected to such testimony on those grounds. View "RICHARDSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Jerome Everett was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Keith Nelson. Everett appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by giving an incorrect jury instruction on justification and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the State's use of his prior convictions as impeachment evidence.The Supreme Court of Georgia found that even if the jury instruction was erroneous, it was a harmless error since the jury was highly unlikely to have believed the use of deadly force was justified. The court also found that Everett's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed because his trial counsel did object to the admission of evidence of Everett's prior convictions and thereby preserved the issue for appeal.Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction. In the decision, the court noted that Everett's justification defense was significantly undermined by the evidence presented at trial, which included his admission to shooting Nelson, evidence of Everett's attempt to flee the crime scene, and the lack of gunshot residue on Everett’s hands, which supported the State's theory that Everett was wearing gloves when he shot Nelson. View "EVERETT v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case in question revolves around a defendant, Devin Durden, who was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Dewayne Chronister. Durden was indicted along with Dontavis Screws and Jasmine Thomas for malice murder, felony murder predicated on armed robbery, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Screws and Thomas pleaded guilty to lesser offenses, and Durden was convicted of all counts except malice murder.Durden's appeal centers on two primary points of contention. First, he argues that the trial court erred in allowing a detective to testify extensively, identifying Durden as the individual shown in surveillance footage. Second, he argues that the court erred in instructing the jury on single-witness testimony without also instructing it on accomplice corroboration. Durden also contends that the cumulative harm of these alleged errors warrants reversal.In reviewing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirms in part and vacates in part. First, while the court acknowledges that the detective's identification testimony was excessive, it finds that the error likely did not impact the trial's outcome because the testimony was redundant of other evidence presented in court. Second, the court agrees that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on accomplice corroboration, but again determines that this error likely did not affect the trial's outcome due to substantial corroborating evidence.Finally, the Supreme Court of Georgia notes an unraised issue regarding sentencing. It observes that Durden's conviction for armed robbery, which was the predicate felony for the felony murder charge, should have merged into the felony murder conviction. As a result, the court vacates Durden's conviction and sentence for armed robbery. View "DURDEN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In January 2018, Matthew Richardson was involved in a drive-by shooting during which his passenger, Julius Aderhold, was shot and killed. The incident occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, and stemmed from Richardson's anger over a stolen gun. Richardson was convicted for felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting in November 2019. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, a consecutive five-year term, and 20 years to run concurrently. Richardson appealed his conviction, alleging the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a detective, which he claimed improperly bolstered out-of-court statements by two other witnesses. He also contended his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to the same testimony.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Richardson's conviction. The court determined the detective's testimony did not constitute improper bolstering as it did not directly address the credibility of other witnesses, but instead focused on their demeanors. The court also rejected Richardson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as it found no deficiency in his trial counsel's performance. Therefore, Richardson's claims of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel failed. The court further concluded that the trial court did not commit an error that was clear and obvious beyond reasonable dispute. View "RICHARDSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of Georgia, Marquavious Howard was appealing his felony murder conviction for the 2017 shooting death of Jacorbin King. Howard was accused of participating in a robbery at King's apartment that resulted in King's death. Howard was indicted along with four others, and at trial, he was found not guilty of malice murder and firearm possession, but guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.Howard appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence of a photo identification, and the trial court erred in excusing a juror for cause. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected all of Howard's arguments and affirmed the lower court's decision.The Court found that there was enough evidence to support the conviction, including testimonies from several witnesses and a confession Howard allegedly made to a jail bunkmate. As for the claim of ineffective counsel, the Court ruled that Howard didn't prove that a motion to suppress the photo identification would have been granted. Regarding the excused juror, the Court stated that Howard didn't have a right to a specific juror and didn't prove that the selected jury was biased or incompetent. View "HOWARD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Muhammad Hassan was convicted of participation in street gang activity, murder, aggravated assault, and firearms charges in connection to a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of Amira Cameron. The shooting was alleged to be a retaliation against a rival gang, the Crips, who were blamed for the unsolved murder of a fellow gang member. Hassan appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing hearsay evidence regarding the prior murder and failing to instruct the jury about the State’s heightened burden of proof when the case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence.The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected both arguments. Regarding the hearsay evidence, the court found that the challenged testimony, which included information about the prior murder and gang affiliations, did not clearly constitute hearsay as it did not expressly involve the repetition of out-of-court statements by other individuals. Additionally, Hassan did not object to the evidence at trial, which limited the appeal to a review for plain error, a high standard that Hassan failed to meet.On the second issue, the court found that the trial court's instruction to the jury—that they could convict only if the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, excludes all reasonable theories of innocence—effectively conveyed the burden of proof required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, no plain error occurred. The court affirmed Hassan's conviction. View "HASSAN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, Andre Pugh appealed his conviction for the murder of his wife and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Pugh challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained via a search warrant for his cell phone records. He also alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search warrant's specificity and that his counsel during his motion for a new trial was ineffective in various respects.The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed with Pugh's claims and affirmed his conviction. The court found that the search warrant in question was supported by probable cause. The warrant was based on Pugh's unusual behavior at the crime scene, his relationship with the victim, inconsistencies between his statements and the evidence at the scene, and evidence suggesting that the crime was committed by someone familiar with the residence.The court also rejected Pugh's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. It found that the claims Pugh wanted his trial counsel to raise would not have been successful. Additionally, it determined that Pugh's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during his motion for a new trial were procedurally barred. View "PUGH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of Georgia, Francisco Javier Madera, who was convicted of the murder of Juan Carlos Zambrano, appealed his conviction on five grounds. He argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial; admitting video footage of the injured victim; admitting evidence under OCGA § 24-8-803 (5); his counsel was ineffective; and the cumulative effect of the errors required a new trial.Madera was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. After a physical altercation at a party, Madera shot Zambrano, who was unarmed. Madera claimed he acted in self-defense, but the State presented evidence that no weapons were found on Zambrano.The court upheld Madera's conviction, rejecting all five claims of error. Madera’s arguments on the admission of evidence were reviewed for plain error as they were not objected to at the trial. The court found no plain error or any showing that the errors affected his substantial rights. The court also upheld the denial of his motion for a new trial, noting that the decision is vested solely in the trial court and is not subject to review.Madera’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected. He failed to show how further investigation would have revealed additional evidence or how it would have helped his defense. His disagreement with his counsel’s strategy to not file a pre-trial immunity motion did not mean the strategy was objectively unreasonable. Madera’s claim of cumulative error also failed as no trial court error was identified. View "MADERA v. THE STATE" on Justia Law