Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Docs of CT and Biotek Services entered into arbitration over a contract dispute in April 2018. The arbitrator found Docs of CT in default regarding liability, and a hearing was scheduled to determine damages. Docs of CT failed to provide required discovery, leading the arbitrator to prohibit them from presenting evidence at the damages hearing. Docs of CT's counsel withdrew, and no new counsel appeared. The arbitrator communicated directly with Docs of CT's representative, Dr. Sidana, who was not allowed to present evidence at the hearing. The arbitrator awarded Biotek over $1.7 million in damages and fees.Docs of CT moved to vacate the arbitration award in superior court, citing arbitrator partiality and misconduct, supported by emails between the arbitrator and Biotek's attorneys. The trial court denied the motion, finding no demonstrated misconduct or partiality. The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that while the ex parte emails were improper, Docs of CT failed to show resulting prejudice.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine the standard for assessing prejudice due to ex parte communications in arbitration. The court held that to vacate an arbitral award under OCGA § 9-9-13 (b), the party must show that the conduct in question affected or influenced the arbitration's outcome. Docs of CT did not demonstrate how the ex parte communications prejudiced the outcome, failing to provide evidence or arguments that the arbitrator's decisions would have been different without the ex parte communications. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, upholding the arbitration award. View "DOCS OF CT, LLC v. BIOTEK SERVICES, LLC" on Justia Law

Benjamin Clarence McIver was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Brandon Smith. The crimes occurred on April 16, 2020. McIver, along with Antavius Wilcox and James Parker, was reindicted on March 25, 2021. McIver and Wilcox faced multiple charges, including malice murder and armed robbery. McIver was tried separately and found guilty on all counts on June 30, 2022. He was sentenced to three consecutive life terms without parole for malice murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping, plus a consecutive five-year term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.McIver filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court on August 12, 2024. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. McIver argued that his trial counsel was ineffective, the trial court erred in not suppressing part of his custodial statement, and the evidence was insufficient to support his armed robbery conviction.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that McIver's trial counsel was not ineffective. The court determined that counsel's strategic decisions, including not presenting expert testimony on DNA evidence and not filing a pre-trial motion challenging the DNA testing, were reasonable. The court also found no plain error in the trial court's handling of McIver's custodial statement.However, the court agreed with McIver that the evidence was insufficient to support his armed robbery conviction. The court reversed the armed robbery conviction and remanded the case for resentencing, as the reversal affected the merger of the aggravated assault count and the consecutive nature of the kidnapping and firearm possession sentences. The court affirmed McIver's remaining convictions. View "MCIVER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Robert Kyle Dougherty was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Trevorius Thomas. Dougherty and his co-indictee, Stephen Lober, planned to rob Thomas by luring him to an abandoned house under the pretense of a drug deal. During the encounter, Thomas was shot and killed. Dougherty and Lober then attempted to cover up the crime. Dougherty was found guilty of all charges except malice murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole, along with additional consecutive and concurrent prison terms for other charges.Dougherty's first appeal was dismissed because his pro se motion for a new trial was a legal nullity, and his appellate counsel's motion was untimely. His subsequent appeals were also dismissed due to unresolved issues with Count 4 and procedural errors. After the trial court entered an order of nolle prosequi for Count 4, Dougherty's third appeal was dismissed based on the law of the case doctrine. On remand, Dougherty filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which was granted, and he was resentenced to the same total time. His motion for a new trial was denied, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Dougherty's convictions for felony murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain text messages and in imposing Dougherty's sentence. The court rejected Dougherty's arguments regarding sentencing disparity and improper considerations during sentencing, concluding that the trial court's comments were reasonable inferences based on the evidence presented at trial. View "DOUGHERTY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Antonio Ingram pleaded guilty to five felony counts, including armed robbery, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery, on September 30, 2016. The court found his plea was freely and voluntarily entered and entered a judgment of conviction on March 3, 2017, nunc pro tunc to September 30, 2016. Ingram was sentenced to concurrent 20-year prison terms, with 15 years to serve for each conviction. Ingram retained attorney David Jones to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was timely filed on October 27, 2016. However, there is no evidence that the trial court ruled on the motion, and Jones testified that the motion was dismissed without a hearing on March 3, 2017.The Superior Court of Richmond County granted in part Ingram’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, allowing him to pursue an out-of-time direct appeal. The court found that Jones rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform Ingram of his right to appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Ingram cross-appealed, arguing that the habeas court erred in denying him the remedy of setting aside his guilty plea and judgment of conviction.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the habeas court erred in treating the March 3 "Order to Enter Sentence" as an order denying Ingram’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record did not demonstrate that Ingram’s judgment of conviction was final for purposes of habeas review. The court vacated the habeas court’s order and remanded the case with directions to allow the parties to supplement the record and demonstrate whether Ingram’s judgment of conviction is final. If the motion to withdraw the guilty plea remains pending, the habeas petition should be dismissed as premature. If the judgment is final, the habeas court may reenter its previous order with that determination. The cross-appeal claims were deemed moot. View "JOSEPH v. INGRAM" on Justia Law

Jaquan Dontae Weston was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of his father, Leroy Weston. The crimes occurred between March 5-6, 2018. A Terrell County grand jury indicted Weston in June 2018, and he was found guilty on all counts in an October 2019 jury trial. Weston was sentenced to life in prison without parole for malice murder, five years consecutive for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and twelve months concurrent for cruelty to children in the third degree. Weston filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. His appeal was initially stricken due to his appellate counsel's failure to file a brief, but it was later re-docketed after new counsel was appointed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Weston argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his malice murder conviction and claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, showed that Weston formed the intent and malice necessary for a malice murder conviction. The jury was entitled to find Weston guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on his actions and statements following his daughter's outcry about her grandfather.Weston also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his competency to stand trial, request a competency hearing, and object to certain evidence. However, these claims were not preserved for appellate review as they were not raised in his motion for a new trial. The court also found that Weston failed to show that his trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining an expert evaluation of his sanity at the time of the crimes, as there was no evidence presented to support this claim.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Weston's arguments. View "WESTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Brownphil, LLC and Peter Kofi Amihere Cudjoe have competing claims to ownership of an undeveloped lot in Bibb County. Both parties possess deeds to the property, but Cudjoe's deed lacks a continuous chain of title. Cudjoe claims ownership through adverse possession under color of title, while Brownphil argues that Cudjoe's involvement with the land is insufficient for adverse possession and asserts ownership through its deed and unbroken chain of title.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cudjoe and denied Brownphil's motion. Brownphil appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Brownphil then sought certiorari from the Supreme Court of Georgia, which was granted. The case was argued orally in December 2024.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed whether possession of a recorded deed is sufficient to establish both the notice and land-possession requirements of adverse possession under color of title. The court concluded that a recorded deed alone cannot establish the land-possession requirement for adverse possession. The court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, which had incorrectly held that a recorded deed could establish constructive possession without actual possession of any part of the property. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine if Cudjoe actually possessed the property or any portion of it. View "BROWNPHIL, LLC v. CUDJOE" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jacqueline Statham suffered injuries during a hysterectomy performed by Dr. David S. Quang, assisted by Dr. Tan-Loc Nguyen and a medical student. The medical student, under the supervision of the defendant physicians, improperly inserted a sponge stick into Statham's rectum instead of her vagina, leading to a rectovaginal fistula. Statham sued the physicians and their medical practice, alleging professional negligence, negligent supervision, and vicarious liability for the medical student's actions.The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, ruling they could not be held vicariously liable for the medical student's negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, with the lead opinion concluding that OCGA § 51-1-38 did not impose vicarious liability on the physicians and that the evidence did not support vicarious liability under general agency principles or the borrowed servant doctrine.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeals that OCGA § 51-1-38 did not provide a basis for vicarious liability. The court also agreed that the borrowed servant doctrine did not apply as an independent basis for imposing vicarious liability. However, the court disagreed with the conclusion that the defendant physicians could not be held vicariously liable under general agency principles. The court held that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a physician can be vicariously liable for a medical student's negligence if the student was acting as the physician's servant in furtherance of the physician's goals and within the scope of the physician's business.The Supreme Court found that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the defendant physicians were vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Therefore, the court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to the defendants on the issue of vicarious liability. View "STATHAM v. QUANG" on Justia Law

Cynthia Cox-Ott sued attorney Jim Leonard and his firm Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, for professional negligence, alleging that Leonard’s actions led to the unfavorable disposition of her case involving a dispute with an insurer over a life insurance policy premium. Leonard had recommended filing suit in Georgia rather than New York and pursuing claims for fraud and reformation of the policy. The insurer removed the case to federal court, which dismissed it, and the dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Leonard and his firm, finding that they were protected by the doctrine of judgmental immunity, which shields attorneys from liability for decisions made in the honest exercise of professional judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on the same basis, concluding that Leonard’s recommendations were protected by judgmental immunity and that Cox-Ott could not establish the causation element of her professional negligence claims.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine whether the doctrine of judgmental immunity correctly states the law of Georgia regarding professional negligence claims against attorneys. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis by focusing solely on whether Leonard engaged in an honest exercise of professional judgment, rather than whether he exercised reasonable care in reaching that judgment. The Supreme Court disapproved the portions of the Court of Appeals’ decision relying on judgmental immunity but ultimately affirmed the judgment on the grounds that Cox-Ott failed to establish causation, an independent basis for the Court of Appeals’ decision. View "COX-OTT v. BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP" on Justia Law

Tanaiveon Johnson was convicted of felony murder and other offenses related to a gang-related shootout in which his friend, Arraffi Williams, was killed. The incident occurred on September 13, 2017, and Johnson was indicted along with five others on September 19, 2018. Johnson faced multiple charges, including felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm possession. During his trial in October 2021, Johnson was found guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison plus a five-year probated sentence for one firearm count. Johnson's motion for a new trial was denied, leading to this appeal.The trial court allowed the State to reopen evidence during jury deliberations to introduce a jail call recording in which Johnson admitted to shooting back to protect the car during the incident. Johnson argued that this was an abuse of discretion, but the Supreme Court of Georgia found no abuse, noting that the State had discovered the call relatively quickly and that Johnson had taken steps to conceal it. The court also gave the defense time to prepare and present additional arguments.Johnson also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his trial counsel pressured him not to testify. The court found that counsel's advice was reasonable given Johnson's communication difficulties and that Johnson had not shown prejudice from not testifying. Johnson's proffered testimony was inconsistent and would not have likely changed the trial's outcome.Finally, Johnson argued that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding proximate cause. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed this claim for plain error and found that Johnson had not shown that the omission of a specific proximate cause instruction probably affected the trial's outcome. The court affirmed Johnson's convictions. View "JOHNSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Antonio Wallace, convicted of felony murder in 2011, sought original autopsy photographs for his pending habeas case. He requested these photographs under the Open Records Act, but the District Attorney refused. Wallace then filed a motion in the superior court where he was convicted, arguing that his request fit within exceptions for "medical purposes" or "public interest" under OCGA § 45-16-27 (d).The trial court found Wallace's arguments unconvincing and denied his motion. Wallace was convicted in Ware County, and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in 2020. In 2021, he filed a habeas corpus petition in Wheeler County. In 2024, he filed a motion for limited disclosure of original trial exhibits, specifically the autopsy photographs, to Dr. Jan Gorniak, citing the poor quality of the copies he had.The trial court held a hearing where Wallace's counsel argued that the photographs were necessary to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. The victim's sister opposed the disclosure. The trial court denied the motion, and Wallace appealed, raising the same arguments.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the disclosure of autopsy photographs was not for "medical purposes" as Wallace's intent was legal, not medical. Additionally, the court found that the disclosure was not "in the public interest" as the victim's family opposed it, and Wallace's arguments did not outweigh their privacy concerns. Thus, the District Attorney was not required to disclose the photographs. View "WALLACE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law