Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Varocus Grant appealed his convictions for malice murder and firearm possession during the commission of a felony in relation to the 2011 shooting death of Travis Shivers. Grant argued he was denied a fair trial because the jury array was selected in a manner inconsistent with the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U. S. Constitution and Georgia statutory law, that the trial court erred by denying a motion in limine to exclude an incriminating statement by Grant, that the trial court erred by admitting testimony about fingerprint evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for numerous reasons. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Grant v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After the Superior Court of Jasper County issued protective orders against Steven and Jodi Bishop in favor of their neighbors, Bernie and Michael Goins and Jana and Keith Powell (“the Neighbors”), the Bishops appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders in an unpublished decision. The Neighbors then moved the trial court for costs and attorney fees incurred as a result of the appellate proceedings, asserting that such an award was permissible under OCGA 16-5-94 (d) (3). The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the fees issue, and, following an examination of the plain language of the statute, the Supreme Court concluded OCGA 16-5-94 (d) (3) did not permit such an award in this case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Bishop v. Goins" on Justia Law

Appellant Tito Ivey appealed his convictions for felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2015 shooting of Franklin Jones. On appeal, Ivey challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and raises four claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Taking each challenge under consideration, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to Ivey’s claims and affirmed his convictions. View "Ivey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Cobb and Gwinnett Counties, Georgia, sued telephone companies for their failure to collect and remit to the Counties a charge imposed on subscribers to offset the cost of 911 services. The telephone companies raised various defenses to the Counties’ suits, including that the 911 charge was a tax that the Counties were not allowed to collect by a lawsuit like this one. The trial court rejected that argument and allowed the cases to proceed, but the Court of Appeals vacated that aspect of the trial court’s ruling and remanded because further development of the record was needed to determine whether the charge was a tax. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the charge was indeed a tax regardless of more factual development, and the Counties lacked legal authority to collect that tax in this lawsuit. View "BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC v. Cobb County et al." on Justia Law

The Anthem Companies, Inc. and Richard Andrews appeal the grant of spoliation sanctions issued against them, arguing that the trial court erred in finding spoliation in the first instance and in sanctioning them with an adverse jury instruction. The underlying suit arose when an Anthem employee allegedly found a bug in her lunch bought from a cafeteria vendor. The employee took pictures, sending copies via email to a building superintendent, and having the images printed at a local drug store. The vendor had been removed as a company cafeteria vendor. This news was posted by someone to Facebook, and the story grew virally. The manager for the vendor, Cheryl Willis, considered the statements in the emails from the superintendent to the company were libelous, asking her attorney to demand the company retract its statements. Wills claimed that, as a result of the wide distribution of the email, the business closed, she and her then-husband filed for bankruptcy, and they lost their home, cars, and savings. Between the time of the original email and the time of trial in 2017, the printed versions of the images were lost. Wills asserted she did not know that the lost drug store prints existed until depositions were scheduled in early 2017. The Georgia Supreme Court determined that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding spoliation sanctions, and reversed the spoliation sanction. View "The Anthem Companies, Inc. v. Willis" on Justia Law

The State appealed a trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on Tina Marie Hanna after her plea of guilty to felony murder and related crimes, contending that the sentence was illegal and void because the trial court improperly sentenced Hanna on the basis of the “rule of lenity.” The Georgia Supreme Court determined the rule of lenity was not implicated in this case, because the trial court erred in sentencing Hanna for an offense which was not charged and to which she did not plead guilty. The Court therefore vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings and resentencing. View "Georgia v. Hanna" on Justia Law

In 2004, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Stanley Hollmon's conviction for malice murder, and held his convictions for criminal attempt to commit armed robbery and felony murder had been vacated. More than a decade later, the trial court entered a sentence on the vacated criminal attempt count. Following that resentencing, in March 2018, Hollmon filed a motion for new trial seeking to raise claims that the indictment was defective and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue. Without specifying whether it was denying or dismissing that motion, the trial court applied the Supreme Court's holding in Walker-Madden v. Georgia, 804 SE2d 8 (2017), and ruled that Hollmon could not assert the claims because he should have raised them in his first appeal. Hollmon challenged that ruling. Because the trial court’s resentencing was a nullity, Hollmon was not permitted a motion for new trial from the resentencing. The Supreme Court construed the trial court’s ruling as a dismissal of Hollmon’s motion and affirmed. The Court vacated the trial court's sentencing order for want of jurisdiction. View "Hollmon v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Preston Young was tried by jury and convicted of murder and aggravated assault in connection with the death of his estranged wife, Sharon Sylvester. Young argued on appeal the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court erred in several ways, including in its evidentiary rulings and its jury charge. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in these claims of error, and affirmed Young's convictions. View "Young v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Zion Wainwright and co-defendant Qutravius Palmer were convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the December 2013 shooting death of Xavier Arnold. On appeal, Wainwright contended the trial court erred in denying a requested continuance for his lead counsel to be present for the beginning of the State’s direct examination of a key witness, and that his lead trial counsel was ineffective in cross-examining that witness. Wainwright also argued the trial court erred by refusing to allow voir dire of the jurors in panels of twelve and by refusing requests to instruct the jury on accident, justification, and voluntary manslaughter. Upon its review of the record, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the aggravated assault that Wainwright was sentenced for should have been merged, and so it vacated that conviction and sentence. Finding no other reversible error, the Court otherwise affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Wainwright v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jarmond Curry was convicted by jury of felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of Byleem Moore and the armed robbery of Terry Dorsey. On appeal, Curry argued the trial court erred in denying his objection to the identification testimony of two witnesses and his motion for a mistrial based on the State’s failure to disclose that it showed at least one photograph of Curry to the witnesses and they identified Curry as the man they saw fleeing the scene of the crime. Though the Georgia Supreme Court concluded Curry was erroneously sentenced, it otherwise affirmed. View "Curry v. Georgia" on Justia Law