Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ryan Bowdery, Rashad Barber, and David Wallace were convicted of murder, aggravated assault, and related crimes in connection with the shooting death of Darius Bottoms and the nonfatal shooting of Jared Robinson. The crimes occurred on June 13, 2014, and a Fulton County grand jury indicted the three men in February 2015. They were tried together in December 2017, and Bowdery was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder, along with additional consecutive terms for other charges. Bowdery filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, leading to this appeal.The trial court denied Bowdery's motion for a new trial, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Bowdery argued that the evidence corroborating the testimony of an accomplice was insufficient under OCGA § 24-14-8, that the trial court erred in giving an incomplete instruction on accomplice corroboration, and that the trial court abused its discretion by not taking remedial measures after an objection to the State’s closing argument.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including cell phone records and gang-related evidence, provided sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony. The court also determined that the trial court did not plainly err in its jury instructions regarding accomplice corroboration, as there was no dispute that the witness was an accomplice. Additionally, the court held that the prosecutor's closing argument did not constitute an impermissible argument about future dangerousness and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling the objection. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Bowdery's convictions. View "BOWDERY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Tony Arnsdorff and Scott Pinholster were jointly indicted for malice murder and other crimes related to the death of Courtney Wells. Wells had a romantic relationship with Pinholster and stayed with Arnsdorff after an argument with Pinholster. When Arnsdorff attempted to return Wells to Pinholster, she refused and left. Pinholster, with Arnsdorff's assistance, later found Wells, and after a confrontation, Pinholster shot Wells multiple times. Arnsdorff helped move Wells's body and initially lied to the police about his knowledge of the crime.Arnsdorff was tried separately and found guilty of all counts, including malice murder, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder, with additional consecutive sentences for other charges. Arnsdorff filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. He then moved to set aside the order due to a delay in notification, which was granted, but his subsequent appeal was dismissed as untimely. After further proceedings, the trial court vacated the previous orders and again denied the motion for a new trial. Arnsdorff filed a timely 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 Arnsdorff's convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court also found no plain error in the jury instructions regarding flight and the cautionary instruction on Arnsdorff's out-of-court statements. Additionally, the court upheld the felony sentence for tampering with evidence, as it involved the prosecution of another person for a serious violent felony. View "ARNSDORFF v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Sonya Fuller was convicted of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault related to the fatal shooting of Anthony Reid. The incident occurred on August 31, 2020, at a hotel in Spalding County, where Fuller, her son Joshua, and other family members were staying. The hotel manager witnessed suspicious activity and heard gunshots from Fuller’s room. Law enforcement found Reid’s body blocking the door, and Fuller and another woman were found hysterical inside. Surveillance footage showed Joshua moving around the hotel before and after the shooting, and evidence linked him to the crime scene. Fuller initially told investigators that an unknown assailant committed the robbery and shooting, which was later proven false.A Spalding County grand jury indicted Fuller and others for various crimes, including felony murder and aggravated assault. Fuller was found guilty of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault, and hindering the apprehension of a criminal. She was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the felony murder charge and an additional five years for hindering apprehension. Fuller’s motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court, and her appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed Fuller’s conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Fuller guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as a party to the crimes. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Fuller’s motion for a directed verdict, applying the same standard of review for constitutional sufficiency of the evidence. The court concluded that Fuller’s actions and the circumstances supported the inference that she shared a common criminal intent with Joshua to commit the crimes. View "FULLER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

A local housing authority, authorized by state statute and activated by city government, faced a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged that the authority negligently failed to ensure the safety of the apartment complex where she was shot. The authority claimed sovereign immunity, arguing it was an instrumentality of the state, a municipal corporation, and an instrumentality of the municipality.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the housing authority, concluding it was protected by sovereign immunity under all three claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the authority's status as an instrumentality of the municipality. The appellate court relied on case law regarding state instrumentalities and concluded that the authority was entitled to sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly applied state instrumentality case law to determine municipal instrumentality immunity. The Supreme Court noted that the Georgia Constitution does not explicitly extend sovereign immunity to municipalities or their instrumentalities, and any such immunity must be derived from common law as of 1776. The Court found that neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals had conducted the necessary common law analysis to determine if the housing authority was entitled to sovereign immunity as an instrumentality of the municipality.The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further consideration under the proper analytical approach, specifically examining the common law scope and nature of sovereign immunity as it applied to municipal instrumentalities. View "GUY v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF AUGUSTA" on Justia Law

Bettie Leverette was shopping at a Walmart store in Conyers, Georgia, when two Walmart employees moving a 2,000-pound box on a pallet jack backed into her. Leverette initially reported no significant injury but later went to the hospital with head pain, blurred vision, and nausea. She was diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome. Leverette sued Walmart, claiming her symptoms were caused by the employees' negligence. At trial, Leverette's family and expert witnesses testified about her injuries and the projected costs of her future care, estimated between $2 million and $3.5 million. Walmart argued that Leverette's symptoms were due to pre-existing conditions and presented expert testimony to support this.The trial court gave a jury instruction on nominal damages at Walmart's request. Walmart suggested in closing arguments that nominal damages could be as low as $10 or as high as $500 but should not be $3 million. Leverette's counsel argued for over $5 million in damages. The jury awarded Leverette $1 million in nominal damages, leaving other damage categories blank. Walmart moved for a new trial, arguing the award was excessive, but the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on precedent that nominal damages have no maximum limit.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine if the $1 million award exceeded the limits on nominal damages under Georgia law. The court concluded that nominal damages, as adopted from English common law, are intended to be a trivial sum, important for the fact of the award but not meaningful in amount. The court overruled the Court of Appeals' precedent allowing large nominal damages and vacated the judgment. The case was remanded for the lower courts to resolve case-specific issues, including whether the error was invited by Walmart and the appropriate remedy. View "WALMART STORES EAST, LP v. LEVERETTE" on Justia Law

Roodson Fleureme alleged that he was injured when struck by a City of Atlanta vehicle driven by a city employee. Before filing a lawsuit, Fleureme sent several timely ante litem notices via Federal Express, including one addressed to "City of Atlanta Office of the Mayor" at the correct address of Atlanta City Hall. The notice inside the envelope was addressed to "City of Atlanta, Office of the Mayor" with the salutation "To Whom it May Concern." Fleureme later sued the City for negligence.The City moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Fleureme's ante litem notice did not comply with OCGA § 36-33-5 (f), which requires service on the mayor personally or by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, agreeing that the notice must be served on the mayor individually by name. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, reasoning that strict compliance with the service requirement was necessary and that the notice addressed to the "Office of the Mayor" did not meet this standard.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine whether the statutory requirement to serve an ante litem notice on "the mayor" could be satisfied by mailing it to the correct address of the mayor's office, addressed to the "Office of the Mayor." The court held that such a notice does satisfy the service requirement. The court reasoned that the statute's purpose is to ensure that the governing authority of the municipality is aware of the claim, and addressing the notice to the office of the mayor at the correct address fulfills this purpose. The court also clarified that "strict compliance" with the statute does not necessitate a hyper-technical interpretation that would require the notice to be addressed to the mayor by name. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded. View "FLEUREME v. CITY OF ATLANTA" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which Latif Arthur Lewis was convicted of malice murder and other charges following the shooting death of Randy Killens, Jr. The evidence at trial showed that Lewis and Killens had a physical altercation the day before the shooting, after which Lewis was angry and sent Killens a picture of Killens’s house. The next day, after a phone call in which threats were exchanged, Lewis and Killens agreed to meet for another fight. Lewis’s ex-girlfriend, Cynthia Rowell, drove him to the meeting place. Rowell testified that Lewis exited the car, approached Killens, and shot him in the leg, resulting in Killens’s death from blood loss. Rowell also stated that Lewis threatened her to ensure her silence. No evidence was found that Killens or his companions were armed.After the incident, law enforcement identified Rowell’s involvement and, following her arrest, she provided a statement consistent with her trial testimony. Lewis was apprehended after a brief standoff, and a firearm linked to the shooting was recovered. At trial in the Superior Court of Ware County, a jury found Lewis guilty of all charges except possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which was not prosecuted. The court sentenced Lewis to life without parole for malice murder and additional consecutive and concurrent sentences for the other offenses. Lewis’s motion for a new trial was denied.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, Lewis argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, claiming he acted in self-defense, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not allowing him to review all discovery. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Lewis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to reject his self-defense claim. The court also found that Lewis abandoned his ineffective assistance claim by failing to support it with argument or authority. The judgment was affirmed. View "LEWIS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

On March 18, 2019, a man named Bobby Holt was fatally stabbed in his apartment in Cordele, Georgia. Pereia Boone and Katrea Williams were seen leaving Holt’s apartment around the time of the incident. Witnesses observed an altercation involving Boone and Williams, and police responded to a 911 call reporting the disturbance. Upon arrival, officers detained Boone and Williams, and discovered Holt’s body inside his apartment with multiple stab wounds and a box cutter lodged in his neck. Physical evidence at the scene included bloodstained clothing, a hacksaw blade, and other items linking Boone to the crime. Boone later gave a custodial confession detailing his and Williams’s involvement in planning and carrying out the attack on Holt.A Crisp County grand jury indicted Boone and Williams for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. Boone was tried separately, and a jury found him guilty on all counts. The Superior Court of Crisp County sentenced Boone to life without parole for malice murder, with a concurrent sentence for aggravated assault. Boone filed a motion for new trial, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Boone’s claims that the evidence was insufficient, that improper other-acts evidence was admitted, and that his counsel was ineffective. The court held that the evidence, including Boone’s confession and corroborating physical and testimonial evidence, was sufficient to support the convictions. The court found that any error in admitting Boone’s statement to a detention officer was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Finally, the court determined that Boone’s trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object during closing argument, as the decision was a reasonable trial strategy. The convictions were affirmed. View "BOONE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Sanchez James was convicted by a jury of murder, aggravated assault, and related charges for fatally shooting Roderick Billups and seriously wounding Keisha Bussey. James, who was wheelchair-bound, claimed self-defense, asserting that Billups was armed and threatened him. However, evidence presented at trial included testimony from Bussey and other witnesses that Billups was unarmed and did not threaten James. Additionally, James admitted during a police interview that he did not see Billups with a gun and acknowledged he was wrong for shooting Billups.The case was initially tried in October 2018 in Fulton County, where James was convicted on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for malice murder, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for the other charges. James filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court in October 2024. He then filed a timely notice of appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. James argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing a witness, Shatora Jones, to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which he claimed violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court found that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict James beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that there was no plain error in allowing Jones to invoke her Fifth Amendment right, as James did not object or request a voir dire of Jones during the trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding James's convictions and sentences. View "JAMES v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to seven rules promulgated by the State Elections Board (SEB) of Georgia. The plaintiffs, including individuals and organizations, argue that these rules were not authorized by the General Assembly and violated the nondelegation doctrine of the Georgia Constitution. The rules in question include requirements for video surveillance of absentee ballot drop boxes, hand counting of ballots, and the provision of photo identification when delivering absentee ballots, among others.The trial court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the rules and ruled in their favor, declaring the rules unconstitutional and contrary to the Election Code. The court also found that the rules violated the nondelegation doctrine and the Federal Elections Clause. The defendants appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that the organizational plaintiffs did not have standing, as they did not assert violations of their own rights. The individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge five of the seven rules based on their right to vote but did not have standing to challenge the Poll Watcher Rule and the Daily Reporting Rule. The court vacated and remanded the issue of whether one plaintiff had standing as a member of the Chatham County Board of Elections.On the merits, the court overruled the precedent set by Dept. of Transp. v. City of Atlanta, which had allowed broad delegations of legislative power to executive agencies. Applying a stricter nondelegation analysis, the court found that four of the five rules challenged by the individual plaintiffs were not authorized by statute and thus invalid. The Drop Box Surveillance Rule, however, was found to be consistent with the statutory requirements and was upheld. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the standing of the election board member and the validity of the remaining two rules. View "REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. ETERNAL VIGILANCE ACTION, INC." on Justia Law