Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case in question revolves around a defendant, Devin Durden, who was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Dewayne Chronister. Durden was indicted along with Dontavis Screws and Jasmine Thomas for malice murder, felony murder predicated on armed robbery, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Screws and Thomas pleaded guilty to lesser offenses, and Durden was convicted of all counts except malice murder.Durden's appeal centers on two primary points of contention. First, he argues that the trial court erred in allowing a detective to testify extensively, identifying Durden as the individual shown in surveillance footage. Second, he argues that the court erred in instructing the jury on single-witness testimony without also instructing it on accomplice corroboration. Durden also contends that the cumulative harm of these alleged errors warrants reversal.In reviewing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirms in part and vacates in part. First, while the court acknowledges that the detective's identification testimony was excessive, it finds that the error likely did not impact the trial's outcome because the testimony was redundant of other evidence presented in court. Second, the court agrees that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on accomplice corroboration, but again determines that this error likely did not affect the trial's outcome due to substantial corroborating evidence.Finally, the Supreme Court of Georgia notes an unraised issue regarding sentencing. It observes that Durden's conviction for armed robbery, which was the predicate felony for the felony murder charge, should have merged into the felony murder conviction. As a result, the court vacates Durden's conviction and sentence for armed robbery. View "DURDEN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In January 2018, Matthew Richardson was involved in a drive-by shooting during which his passenger, Julius Aderhold, was shot and killed. The incident occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, and stemmed from Richardson's anger over a stolen gun. Richardson was convicted for felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting in November 2019. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, a consecutive five-year term, and 20 years to run concurrently. Richardson appealed his conviction, alleging the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a detective, which he claimed improperly bolstered out-of-court statements by two other witnesses. He also contended his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to the same testimony.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Richardson's conviction. The court determined the detective's testimony did not constitute improper bolstering as it did not directly address the credibility of other witnesses, but instead focused on their demeanors. The court also rejected Richardson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as it found no deficiency in his trial counsel's performance. Therefore, Richardson's claims of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel failed. The court further concluded that the trial court did not commit an error that was clear and obvious beyond reasonable dispute. View "RICHARDSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of Georgia, Marquavious Howard was appealing his felony murder conviction for the 2017 shooting death of Jacorbin King. Howard was accused of participating in a robbery at King's apartment that resulted in King's death. Howard was indicted along with four others, and at trial, he was found not guilty of malice murder and firearm possession, but guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.Howard appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence of a photo identification, and the trial court erred in excusing a juror for cause. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected all of Howard's arguments and affirmed the lower court's decision.The Court found that there was enough evidence to support the conviction, including testimonies from several witnesses and a confession Howard allegedly made to a jail bunkmate. As for the claim of ineffective counsel, the Court ruled that Howard didn't prove that a motion to suppress the photo identification would have been granted. Regarding the excused juror, the Court stated that Howard didn't have a right to a specific juror and didn't prove that the selected jury was biased or incompetent. View "HOWARD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Muhammad Hassan was convicted of participation in street gang activity, murder, aggravated assault, and firearms charges in connection to a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of Amira Cameron. The shooting was alleged to be a retaliation against a rival gang, the Crips, who were blamed for the unsolved murder of a fellow gang member. Hassan appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing hearsay evidence regarding the prior murder and failing to instruct the jury about the State’s heightened burden of proof when the case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence.The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected both arguments. Regarding the hearsay evidence, the court found that the challenged testimony, which included information about the prior murder and gang affiliations, did not clearly constitute hearsay as it did not expressly involve the repetition of out-of-court statements by other individuals. Additionally, Hassan did not object to the evidence at trial, which limited the appeal to a review for plain error, a high standard that Hassan failed to meet.On the second issue, the court found that the trial court's instruction to the jury—that they could convict only if the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, excludes all reasonable theories of innocence—effectively conveyed the burden of proof required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, no plain error occurred. The court affirmed Hassan's conviction. View "HASSAN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, Andre Pugh appealed his conviction for the murder of his wife and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Pugh challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained via a search warrant for his cell phone records. He also alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search warrant's specificity and that his counsel during his motion for a new trial was ineffective in various respects.The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed with Pugh's claims and affirmed his conviction. The court found that the search warrant in question was supported by probable cause. The warrant was based on Pugh's unusual behavior at the crime scene, his relationship with the victim, inconsistencies between his statements and the evidence at the scene, and evidence suggesting that the crime was committed by someone familiar with the residence.The court also rejected Pugh's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. It found that the claims Pugh wanted his trial counsel to raise would not have been successful. Additionally, it determined that Pugh's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during his motion for a new trial were procedurally barred. View "PUGH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of Georgia, Francisco Javier Madera, who was convicted of the murder of Juan Carlos Zambrano, appealed his conviction on five grounds. He argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial; admitting video footage of the injured victim; admitting evidence under OCGA § 24-8-803 (5); his counsel was ineffective; and the cumulative effect of the errors required a new trial.Madera was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. After a physical altercation at a party, Madera shot Zambrano, who was unarmed. Madera claimed he acted in self-defense, but the State presented evidence that no weapons were found on Zambrano.The court upheld Madera's conviction, rejecting all five claims of error. Madera’s arguments on the admission of evidence were reviewed for plain error as they were not objected to at the trial. The court found no plain error or any showing that the errors affected his substantial rights. The court also upheld the denial of his motion for a new trial, noting that the decision is vested solely in the trial court and is not subject to review.Madera’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected. He failed to show how further investigation would have revealed additional evidence or how it would have helped his defense. His disagreement with his counsel’s strategy to not file a pre-trial immunity motion did not mean the strategy was objectively unreasonable. Madera’s claim of cumulative error also failed as no trial court error was identified. View "MADERA v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Savanna Jennings, was convicted of malice murder and related charges in relation to the shooting death of her grandfather, Otha Perrin Sr. The jury found her guilty on all counts, and she was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus fifteen years in confinement. On appeal, Jennings argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting other-acts evidence, admitting certain business records, and that her trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance.The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Jennings' financial activities pertaining to her grandfather's bank account, as it formed part of the financial motive for the crime. The court also found no plain error in the admission of Facebook messages between Jennings and another individual, which were arguably hearsay but did not likely affect the outcome of the trial.In terms of ineffective counsel, the court found that Jennings' lawyer did preserve her objections to the admission of the bank records. As for the failure to preserve an objection to the Facebook records and to timely disclose an expert witness, the court concluded that Jennings failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that these actions affected the outcome of her trial. Therefore, the court affirmed Jennings' convictions. View "JENNINGS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled on an appeal by Allison Crary, who challenged three orders from a revocation proceeding. The orders were: denial of a motion to declare a grandparent visitation statute unconstitutional, denial of a motion for a contempt citation against Khristel and Frank Clautice, and denial of a motion for attorney fees and expenses.The case involved a minor child, with Crary having sole legal and physical custody. The Clautices, the child's maternal grandparents, had been granted visitation rights under a consent order. Crary later petitioned to revoke this order and for a contempt citation against the grandparents for non-compliance. She also sought to declare the grandparent visitation statute unconstitutional and asked for attorney fees and expenses.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal regarding the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation statute as moot, since the trial court had already revoked the grandparent visitation order on other grounds. The court also affirmed the trial court’s orders denying Crary’s contempt motion and motion for attorney fees and expenses. The court noted that Crary had not provided evidence at the hearing to support a contempt finding, and that the trial court was not required to hold a hearing or take evidence before denying the motion for attorney fees and expenses. View "CRARY v. CLAUTICE" on Justia Law

In this case, a Georgia Supreme Court decision, the defendant, Remond Sinkfield, was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the death of Levi Atkinson. Atkinson died after either jumping or being pushed out of a moving vehicle during an altercation with Sinkfield. The vehicle was then struck by another car.Sinkfield appealed the convictions arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for felony murder and theft, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a pretrial interview by police, and that the trial court committed plain error in several ways. Moreover, Sinkfield claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel's deficiencies, including by failing to retain a medical expert to testify as to the cause of Atkinson's death.The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected all of these claims and affirmed the convictions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Sinkfield's convictions, that the trial court did not commit plain error, and that Sinkfield was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in various evidentiary rulings. View "SINKFIELD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, Willie Williams Palmer appealed his 2023 convictions for malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting deaths of his estranged wife, Brenda Jenkins Palmer, and his 15-year-old stepdaughter, Christine Jenkins. He argued that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated, that the loss or destruction of potential biological evidence from the crime scene required dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct or an instruction allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference against the state, that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding evidence of bias against him from local law enforcement and prosecutors, and that he was unfairly targeted as the shooter to the exclusion of other possible suspects. He also claimed that the cumulative effect of the court’s errors deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial.However, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed his convictions. The court found that the delay in bringing Palmer to trial did not violate his right to a speedy trial. Regarding the potential biological evidence, the court found that the State did not act in bad faith in failing to preserve it and that it lacked exculpatory value. It also ruled that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of historical bias against Palmer as it was tangential to the issues at trial. The court found no basis for Palmer's claim of being unfairly targeted as the shooter to the exclusion of other possible suspects. Lastly, the court ruled that cumulative error analysis was inapplicable as Palmer did not show any error by the trial court. View "PALMER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law