Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jermorris Russell seeks appellate review of his convictions for the 2013 shooting death of Quintavian Johnson and the aggravated assault of Dayveian Gibson. Witnesses testified that appellant and Johnson were shadowboxing each other and wrestling playfully. The play paused briefly so that appellant could remove his 9 mm Glock hand gun which he had been carrying somewhere on his person. Appellant gave the gun to Gibson, who testified he held the gun to his side while watching appellant and Johnson resume their play fight. At some point, Johnson placed appellant in some sort of “choke hold” and appellant became angry, although Gibson stated appellant managed to free himself from Johnson’s hold. Noting that the playfulness of the situation had changed, Gibson put appellant’s gun down on the sidewalk and placed himself between appellant and Johnson in an effort to deescalate the situation. Ignoring Gibson’s pleas to calm down, appellant took a swing at Johnson, but missed. A few women who were watching from a nearby porch laughed. Johnson took a swing at appellant and punched him in the eye, causing appellant to fall to the ground. While on the ground, appellant retrieved his gun and stood back up pointing it at Johnson and Gibson, who had again placed himself between his two friends in an attempt to calm tensions down. Nevertheless, appellant fired his gun, shooting Gibson in the arm, and fatally shooting Johnson, who witnesses testified was unarmed and tried to run away. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him because the State failed to show he had any intent to shoot and kill Johnson or harm Gibson. Further, appellant argued the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on mutual combat. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s convictions. View "Russell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, Tefflon Rhoden appealed his convictions for malice murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in connection with the fatal shooting of Emmanuel OpokuAfari. Rhoden’s sole challenge was that trial counsel was ineffective in two respects: (1) in failing to move for a mistrial based on an alleged admission by the prosecutor of racial and gender discrimination during jury selection, and (2) in not moving for a severance of Rhoden’s trial from that of his co-defendant, Tariq Smith. Finding the challenges to be unavailing, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Rhoden v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kevin Gibbs was convicted of aggravated assault upon a police officer and other offenses arising out of an encounter he had with a Smyrna police officer in 2013, commencing at a city park. Gibbs was behind the wheel of a car backed into a parking space in a remote area of the park when the officer drove his patrol vehicle into that same parking area. The officer testified at trial that he intentionally placed his vehicle at an angle so that it would not block Gibbs from leaving, and then he exited the patrol vehicle and approached Gibbs’s car. The Georgia Supreme Court found the record revealed that as the officer approached Gibbs’s car, Gibbs stepped on the accelerator, causing the car to lurch forward and strike the officer’s leg. Even after the officer drew his weapon and ordered Gibbs to stop and exit his vehicle, Gibbs again accelerated the car and struck the officer a second time. The officer dove out of the way while firing his weapon. The gunshot shattered the driver-side window and struck Gibbs. Gibbs then sped away from the park, let his passengers out, and then drove recklessly through heavy traffic while being pursued by patrol cars, ultimately colliding with another vehicle before being stopped by the police. One of the State’s witnesses at trial was a nurse at the hospital where Gibbs was admitted for treatment of his gunshot wound after being taken into custody. As part of the routine admitting process, the nurse questioned Gibbs about his medical history and made a written record of certain information he offered in response. The issues this case presented for the Supreme Court’s review was: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining the nurse’s testimony regarding Gibbs’s statement to her that he had used marijuana on the day of the crimes was admissible as intrinsic evidence; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that Gibbs waived his right to argue that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the testimony regarding his marijuana use because he failed to question trial counsel about that issue at the motion for new trial hearing. The Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals erred in its determination that Gibbs waived his right to argue ineffective assistance of counsel, but nevertheless agreed the trial court’s denial of Gibbs’s motion for new trial was properly affirmed. View "Gibbs v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michael Williams was found guilty by jury of malice murder and related crimes for the beating death of four-year-old Nasir Patrick. On appeal, Williams argued the trial court erred in denying him funds to obtain a medical expert, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and that the trial court erred in striking a juror for cause. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Department of Revenue denied New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC; Chattanooga MSA LP; Georgia RSA No. 3, LP; and Northeastern Georgia RSA Limited Partnership (collectively “AT&T”) a tax refund. The appellants alleged that from November 1, 2005 until September 7, 2010, they sold wireless Internet access services to Georgia customers, which were exempt from state sales tax under OCGA 48-8-2. In November 2010, the appellants filed refund claims with the Department for sales tax that they claimed was, until September 2010, erroneously charged to Georgia customers on the purchase of wireless Internet access service. The Department officially refused to pay the requested refund claims. On April 17, 2015, the appellants filed their complaint to challenge this denial. The Department answered and moved to dismiss for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the failure to state a claim, because: (1) appellants did not reimburse the alleged illegally collected sales tax to customers before seeking a refund from the Department, in violation of Department Regulation 560-12-1-.25; (2) the appellants lacked standing to file sales-tax-refund claims on behalf of customers for periods prior to May 5, 2009; and (3) the action was barred by Georgia class-action law. Following a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court granted it on all three grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine whether Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 560-12-1-.25 (2) properly required a dealer seeking a sales tax refund reimburse its customer before applying for a refund from the Department of Revenue. The Supreme Court determined this was not a requirement, and that the Court of Appeals’ opinion had to be vacated in part and reversed in part, and that the case remanded with direction. View "New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Georgia Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellant Raymond McKoy was convicted of malice murder in connection with the shooting death of his estranged wife’s girlfriend, Lauren Hudson. Appellant argued the trial court erred in ruling journal entries he had written were admissible and erred in striking his direct testimony after he refused to submit to cross-examination. At trial, the defense argued that Appellant shot Hudson in self-defense because she pointed a gun at him. Appellant was the final witness called by the defense. He testified on direct examination, and the trial was then adjourned for the day. The next morning, with Appellant present but before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the prosecutor announced that he intended to use some entries from Appellant’s journals to impeach Appellant’s testimony. The defense argued that the journals, which were found in a bag in Appellant’s car, had been seized illegally. The State did not contend that they were legally seized, but argued that even illegally obtained evidence can be used for impeachment. After a lengthy discussion, the trial court ruled that the journals generally would be admissible, heard argument on a few specific entries the State wanted to introduce, and concluded that those entries would be admissible. After this ruling, Appellant refused to return to the witness stand to be cross-examined. The court said that if Appellant did not retake the stand, it would tell the jury to “totally disregard all of his testimony.” The Georgia Supreme Court determined the journals at issue here were never actually admitted into evidence due to Appellant’s decision not to testify on cross-examination. Thus any error the court may have made in that ruling in limine was not preserved for appellate review. Once Appellant withdrew his consent to be cross-examined as a witness, he could no longer be treated as a witness at all. The Supreme Court found the trial court clearly informed Appellant of the consequence if he refused to retake the stand, allowed Appellant to consult his counsel, and then asked Appellant to make an informed decision. Appellant elected not to retake the stand and thereby suffer the consequence of his testimony being excluded from the evidence he presented in his defense. Finding, therefore, no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction. View "McKoy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Raymond McKoy was convicted of malice murder in connection with the shooting death of his estranged wife’s girlfriend, Lauren Hudson. Appellant argued the trial court erred in ruling journal entries he had written were admissible and erred in striking his direct testimony after he refused to submit to cross-examination. At trial, the defense argued that Appellant shot Hudson in self-defense because she pointed a gun at him. Appellant was the final witness called by the defense. He testified on direct examination, and the trial was then adjourned for the day. The next morning, with Appellant present but before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the prosecutor announced that he intended to use some entries from Appellant’s journals to impeach Appellant’s testimony. The defense argued that the journals, which were found in a bag in Appellant’s car, had been seized illegally. The State did not contend that they were legally seized, but argued that even illegally obtained evidence can be used for impeachment. After a lengthy discussion, the trial court ruled that the journals generally would be admissible, heard argument on a few specific entries the State wanted to introduce, and concluded that those entries would be admissible. After this ruling, Appellant refused to return to the witness stand to be cross-examined. The court said that if Appellant did not retake the stand, it would tell the jury to “totally disregard all of his testimony.” The Georgia Supreme Court determined the journals at issue here were never actually admitted into evidence due to Appellant’s decision not to testify on cross-examination. Thus any error the court may have made in that ruling in limine was not preserved for appellate review. Once Appellant withdrew his consent to be cross-examined as a witness, he could no longer be treated as a witness at all. The Supreme Court found the trial court clearly informed Appellant of the consequence if he refused to retake the stand, allowed Appellant to consult his counsel, and then asked Appellant to make an informed decision. Appellant elected not to retake the stand and thereby suffer the consequence of his testimony being excluded from the evidence he presented in his defense. Finding, therefore, no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction. View "McKoy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Ted Robinson was found guilty of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, attempted armed robbery, possession of a firearm in commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in connection with the killing of Timothy Lee Buck. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed, asserting insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s failure to charge on corroboration of accomplice testimony, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Robinson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Ted Robinson was found guilty of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, attempted armed robbery, possession of a firearm in commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in connection with the killing of Timothy Lee Buck. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed, asserting insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s failure to charge on corroboration of accomplice testimony, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Robinson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Clarence Jenkins Jr. appealed his convictions and sentences for felony murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of aggravated battery, all in connection with the shooting death of his 22-year-old son, Chavarious Jenkins (“Chavarious”). The Georgia Supreme Court’s review of the record revealed Jenkins received a sentence of five years in prison for the crime of possession of a firearm during the commission of aggravated assault, as well as a sentence of five years in prison for the crime of possession of a firearm during the commission of aggravated battery. But, the underlying crimes for each possession charge were committed on the same victim, as part of the same fatal encounter, and the possession charges thus merged with each other. Consequently, the case must had to be remanded so that Jenkins could be resentenced on only one of the possession counts, in the discretion of the trial court. View "Jenkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law