Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sherman Lamont Allen was convicted for the murder of his cousin, Treston Smith, following a physical altercation. Allen had suspected his partner, Tia, of having an affair with Smith. One night, Allen found Tia and Smith together at a gas station. After Tia drove away, Allen engaged in a verbal altercation with Smith, which escalated into a physical fight. Surveillance footage showed Allen beating and kicking Smith, who was on the ground. Smith later died from his injuries. Allen was indicted for one count of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of aggravated battery. He was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder.Allen appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of murder. He contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury instruction, as he had acted out of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation, namely, discovering Tia's infidelity with Smith.The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with Allen. It held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The court found that there was at least slight evidence to support the instruction, namely, Allen's discovery of Tia's infidelity. The court also found that the State failed to show that it was highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict. As a result, the court reversed Allen’s murder conviction. View "ALLEN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Christopher Vargas Zayas, who was convicted for malice murder and a related crime in connection with the shooting death of his girlfriend, Carly Andrews. The shooting occurred in September 2018, and Zayas was indicted for multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, family violence, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Zayas was found guilty on all five counts and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.Zayas appealed his convictions, arguing that the circumstantial evidence at trial was insufficient to exclude the alternative hypothesis that the pistol discharged accidentally as Andrews grabbed it. He also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements he made to investigators at the police station before he received Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court of Georgia, however, affirmed the convictions, concluding that the circumstantial evidence authorized the jury to reject Zayas's alternative hypothesis as unreasonable, that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to seek to suppress Zayas's statements, and that Zayas suffered no prejudice from any instructional error. View "ZAYAS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Isaac Taqai Howard was sentenced as a first offender to two concurrent fifteen-year sentences, with the first eighteen months in confinement and the balance served on probation. In November 2022, the State filed two petitions alleging that Howard violated the conditions of his probation. After a hearing, the trial court entered an adjudication of guilt on both petitions and resentenced Howard as a felon to fifteen years, with the first five years in confinement and the balance served on probation. Howard appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to file an application for discretionary appeal.The Court of Appeals applied its decision from nearly 40 years ago in Dean v. State, which held that the revocation of a defendant’s first-offender probation was controlled by the discretionary appeal procedure in OCGA § 5-6-35. The court reasoned that OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) required a discretionary application for appeals from orders revoking probation, making no distinction between first-offender probation and probation otherwise provided for in criminal cases.The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to determine whether Howard had the right to a direct appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) or was instead required to file a discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a). The court concluded that the entry of an adjudication of guilt and revocation of a defendant’s first-offender status is directly appealable. The court reasoned that the entry of an adjudication of guilt and sentence constitutes a final judgment and triggers the defendant’s right to an immediate appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). The court further reasoned that an appeal in this context is not an appeal from an order revoking probation and thus does not require a discretionary application. Therefore, the court reversed the Court of Appeals’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "HOWARD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves John R. Tibbetts, a teacher, and his employer, the Worth County School District. The District offered Tibbetts a contract for the upcoming school year, but Tibbetts did not return the signed contract within the stipulated time. The District then informed Tibbetts that his employment would end when his current contract expired. Tibbetts sued the District for breach of contract, arguing that the offered contract did not comply with Georgia's statutory requirements for teacher contracts because it was missing terms and contained blanks. Therefore, he contended, his employment contract for the prior school year was renewed by operation of law.The trial court granted the District's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no existing written contract between the parties that operated to waive sovereign immunity under the ex contractu clause of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. The trial court found that the District offered Tibbetts a contract that complied with the statutory requirements, but that Tibbetts did not timely accept that offer.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It determined that the contract the District offered Tibbetts for the upcoming school year failed to comply with the requirements of the statute; therefore, Tibbetts’s contract for the previous school year was renewed by operation of law and constituted a contract in writing. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Tibbetts’s claim was one for breach of a written contract, and sovereign immunity was waived pursuant to the ex contractu clause.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. It held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the grant of summary judgment in favor of the District because the employment contract the District offered Tibbetts for the upcoming school year satisfied the requirements of the statute. Because Tibbetts failed to timely accept this offer, no written contract exists to support Tibbetts’s claim for breach of a written contract. Absent such a claim, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to the ex contractu clause. View "WORTH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. TIBBETTS" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal from an in rem civil-asset-forfeiture proceeding against over $1 million held in various bank accounts, real property, and other property. The State alleges that the property was used, intended for use, or constituted the proceeds derived from the commission of numerous crimes related to the theft, purchase, and sale of catalytic converters and other regulated metal property. The appellants, Garrett Smith, Stacey Smith, SmithCo Recycling, LLC, and SmithCo Transfer, LLC, claimed to be the owners of the seized property and moved to dismiss the complaint. They argued that the trial court had failed to timely hold a bench trial or order a continuance, and that the State had failed to allege the essential elements of a crime. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to address three questions. The court concluded that the appellants are estopped from arguing on appeal that the date SmithCo Transfer filed its answer was not equivalent to the date it was served with the complaint. On that basis, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely hold a bench trial or continue the trial. The court also held that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the second amended complaint adequately alleged the essential elements of theft by taking. The court therefore reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion holding otherwise. The case was remanded for further proceedings without answering the third certiorari question. View "SMITH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

LaVante Pierre Gray was convicted for felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in relation to the death of James Jones. The incident occurred on September 1, 2017, when Jones and Gray were arguing over a missing wallet. Jones accused Gray of stealing his wallet and demanded that Gray empty his pockets. The argument escalated into a physical altercation, during which Jones took the key fob to Gray's car. Gray shot Jones multiple times, retrieved his key fob, and fled the scene. Gray was later arrested in Ohio.Gray was indicted by a DeKalb County grand jury on January 4, 2018, on charges of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was tried before a jury in July 2021 and acquitted of malice murder but found guilty of the other charges. Gray was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and five years for possession of a firearm, to run consecutively. Gray filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.In the Supreme Court of Georgia, Gray argued that the trial court erred by refusing to give his request for jury charges supporting the defense of justification. He claimed that he acted in self-defense to prevent a forcible felony. However, the Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that even if the trial court erred, the error was harmless due to the strong evidence against Gray. The court noted that multiple witnesses saw Gray argue with Jones, fight with him, and shoot him multiple times. The court also noted that the evidence supporting Gray's defense was weak. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Gray v. State" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Clark Chandler Anderson, who was convicted of malice murder for shooting and killing Kevin Murr. Anderson argued that the killing was voluntary manslaughter, not murder, as he shot Murr after being seriously provoked. However, the jury found Anderson guilty of malice murder. Anderson appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court should have given his requested jury instruction about voluntary manslaughter, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain testimonies.Previously, Anderson was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, aggravated assault of Murr, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder, with a consecutive term of five years in prison for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Anderson's convictions. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Anderson’s conviction for malice murder as it showed that he intentionally shot Murr 16 times. The court also concluded that no jury instruction about voluntary manslaughter was required because the provocation that Anderson claimed was not enough to excite the “sudden, violent, and irresistible passion” that could warrant a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Furthermore, the court found that Anderson's counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the coworkers’ testimony, as the counsel wanted the jury to hear some of the testimony because it would serve counsel’s strategy of trying to evoke the jury’s sympathy. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Visheslav Feder, who was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Avery Birthrong. Feder had lent money to Birthrong and her boyfriend, Laurence Parks, and when they failed to repay him, Feder began making threats. On the day of the incident, Feder fired at a vehicle containing Birthrong, Parks, and another individual, John Durden. Birthrong was fatally shot in the head.The case was initially tried in a Gwinnett County court where Feder was indicted for felony murder and aggravated assault of Birthrong, Parks, and Durden, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Feder was found not guilty of the aggravated assault of Parks, but guilty of felony murder and the remaining counts. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole, with additional sentences for the other counts. Feder filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied.In the Supreme Court of Georgia, Feder argued that his acquittal for the aggravated assault of Parks meant he should not have been convicted for the felony murder and aggravated assault of Birthrong or the aggravated assault of Durden, as the verdicts were repugnant. He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence recovered from his cell phone. The court disagreed, stating that the verdicts were at most inconsistent, not repugnant, which is not a basis for reversal. The court also found that Feder failed to establish that his trial counsel's decision not to file a motion to suppress was deficient. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "FEDER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Derylmyaize Jackson, who was convicted of felony murder and a firearm offense related to the shooting death of Tazavia Cooper. The incident occurred on July 5, 2019, when Jackson and Cooper met to exchange guns. Jackson shot Cooper, took his gun, and fled the scene. Jackson was indicted by a grand jury in October 2020 and found guilty of all charges in June 2021. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for felony murder and five consecutive years for the firearm offense. Jackson filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied in August 2023.Jackson appealed his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to statements made by the prosecutor during her closing argument. He claimed these statements reduced the state's burden to prove the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. To succeed in his claim, Jackson had to prove that his counsel's performance was deficient and that he suffered prejudice as a result.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court assumed that Jackson's trial counsel may have performed deficiently by not objecting to the prosecutor's statements about reasonable doubt. However, Jackson failed to establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different if counsel had objected, thus he did not show prejudice. The court noted that the evidence against Jackson was significant, and the prosecutor's mischaracterization of reasonable doubt was corrected by the trial court's jury instructions. Therefore, Jackson's claim of ineffective assistance was dismissed. View "JACKSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Justin Scott Mayo, who was convicted for malice murder and other crimes related to the death of his girlfriend, Stephanie Smith. Mayo was indicted for one count of malice murder, one count of felony murder predicated on a count of aggravated assault, and two additional counts of felony murder, each predicated on a separate count of aggravated battery. The trial court acquitted Mayo of two counts of felony murder and the two counts of aggravated battery on which those felony murder counts were predicated. The jury found Mayo guilty of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. Mayo was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder.Mayo appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court presented the jury with a confusing verdict form that was inconsistent with the jury charge, and that the trial court received and responded to a note from the jury during its deliberations without informing the parties, thereby depriving Mayo of his right to be present throughout the proceedings against him and his right to effective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that the trial court's response to the jury's note was not incorrect and was within the trial court's discretion. The court also concluded that the presumption of harm arising from the court's assumed violation of Mayo's right to be present was rebutted by the evidence. View "MAYO v. THE STATE" on Justia Law