Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Gregory Johnson was convicted of felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Hugh Ethridge. Johnson appealed, claiming, among other things, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s conviction. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Kyro Morrison was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Vonyell Byrd, as well as unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Morrison appealed, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Morrison v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jonathan Kilgore appealed the denial of his motion for new trial (as amended), and his convictions and sentences for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault, aggravated assault, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of John Reid and the firing of a handgun at Jarvis Winder. Kilgore challenged certain portions of the State’s closing argument as improperly commenting on his right to remain silent and as being burden shifting; he also challenged the effectiveness of his trial counsel for not objecting to the allegedly improper comments. Finding no merit to any of these contentions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kilgore v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Wife appealed an adverse judgment in an action for contempt. The record shows Wife and Husband were divorced on June 20, 2011. Neither party was represented by counsel during the divorce. The final divorce decree was a perfunctory, one-page form document which incorporated a form separation agreement that was found on the Internet, printed and signed by both parties then notarized. The separation agreement was not fully filled in and/or marked where appropriate; but it purported to require Husband to pay $513 per month as alimony and $647 as child support. In addition to the final decree and separation agreement, the record also contains an unsigned, two-page typed document, drafted by Husband, which was filed with the trial court on May 10, 2011, at approximately the same time the separation agreement was executed. This document states that the parties “wish” to hold onto the marital home until the economy improved, that Wife will occupy the home, and that the combined alimony and support payment was sufficient to pay the mortgage on the home. This document was not referenced by or incorporated into the final decree of divorce. Husband stopped making mortgage payments sometime after the divorce was finalized, the bank foreclosed on the marital home, and Wife was evicted. Wife filed this contempt action alleging Husband was required to make the alimony and child support payments to her directly, rather than by depositing the money into a joint bank account. The trial court declined to hold Husband in contempt, determining that the documents filed in the divorce did not require Husband to make his support payments directly to Wife, that the two-page typed document was not a part of the divorce decree and that, even if that document was a part of the divorce decree, it was too vague to be enforceable. The trial court determined that the two-page typed document did not obligate Husband to pay the mortgage. In addition, since the minor child was no longer living with Wife and was in Husband’s custody, the trial court held that Husband’s child support payments were to be immediately extinguished. Finally, the trial court denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees and request for consequential damages stemming from her eviction from the marital home upon foreclosure. Wife’s main assertion of error was that Husband should have been held in contempt because he failed to pay the alimony and the child support payments to her directly, but rather deposited the payments into the parties’ joint bank account. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s denial, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Brown" on Justia Law

Jerome Upshaw was tried by jury and convicted of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 1996 fatal shooting of Joanne Walton. Upshaw appealed, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it limited his cross-examination of one prosecution witness; (2) when it refused to grant a mistrial after another prosecution witness refused to be cross-examined; and (3) when it excepted the lead detective from the rule of sequestration. After review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court noted that the trial court erroneously sentenced Upshaw for both malice murder and felony murder, and vacated the conviction and sentence for felony murder. Finding no other error, the Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Upshaw v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Ramel Brown was convicted by jury for murder and related crimes. Brown was found guilty for gang activity too. The trial court granted Brown’s motion for new trial solely on that count, finding that evidence used to prove that crime at trial was not properly authenticated. The trial court, however, denied Brown’s motion for new trial as to the remaining convictions. Brown argued on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court that the introduction of improperly authenticated evidence at trial required a reversal of all his convictions. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court disagreed with Brown’s proffered reason and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Leslie Mosby was convicted of murder and other offenses arising out of the 2012 shooting death of Theisen Wynn. Mosby appealed: (1) challenging that the evidence did not prove the affirmative defense of self-defense; (2) she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial based on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Mosby’s conviction. View "Mosby v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants Julius Thomas and Desmond Nixon were tried jointly and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with a crime spree that took place over three days in January 2013. Both appellants appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions and averring claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court found no merit to the ineffective assistance claims raised by both Appellants. However, the Court did find error with regard to Nixon’s sentences for three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Therefore, the Court vacated those aspects of Nixon’s sentences. Further, though the evidence was sufficient to support all of Nixon’s criminal convictions and sentences, as well as Thomas’ convictions and sentences as they related to the assault, robbery and battery of Rosendo Bandera, the Court reversed Thomas’ conviction and sentence for the armed robbery and set aside his guilty verdicts for the aggravated assaults of “B.W.” based upon insufficient evidence proving he was a party to those crimes. View "Thomas v. Georgia" on Justia Law

More than 25 years ago, Raymond Yelverton was convicted of child molestation and aggravated child molestation, and as a result, he was required to register as a sexual offender. Yelverton filed a petition for release from the registration requirements. The trial court denied his petition, noting that evidence of a similar transaction was admitted at his criminal trial, and concluding that the admission of that evidence rendered Yelverton ineligible for release. Yelverton appealed, arguing that the court misconstrued the law concerning his eligibility for release. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Yelverton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Harold Parks appealed convictions for crimes stemming from the 2013 shooting death of Terrence Washington. He argued that the trial court made multiple evidentiary errors, including: (1) in admitting evidence of an old (1990) aggravated assault conviction at trial; and (2) the evidence ultimately admitted was insufficient to support his conviction. Finding no reversible errors, the Supreme Court affirmed Parks' convictions. View "Parks v. Georgia" on Justia Law