Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2008, Olga Zarate-Martinez filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Michael D. Echemendia, Atlanta Women’s Health Group, P.C., Atlanta Women’s Health Group, II, LLC, and North Crescent Surgery Center, LLC (collectively “Echemendia”), for damages for injuries she sustained during an open laparoscopic tubal ligation that was allegedly negligently performed and which resulted in a perforated bowel. Zarate-Martinez attached to her complaint an affidavit from Dr. Errol G. Jacobi. She later identified Dr. Charles J. Ward as an expert for summary judgment purposes, but she never submitted an affidavit from Dr. Ward in support of her complaint. Echemendia deposed Dr. Ward and Dr. Jacobi, moved to strike the testimony from both doctors on the grounds that they did not qualify as experts, and also moved for summary judgment. Without any reference to some constitutional issues raised, on February 21, 2013, the trial court issued an order striking both experts’ testimony, but granted Zarate-Martinez 45 days in which to file an affidavit from a competent expert witness. Zarate-Martinez timely submitted another affidavit, this time from Dr. Nancy Hendrix, and Echemendia again moved to strike. Zarate-Martinez then filed a supplemental affidavit from Hendrix outside of the 45-day time frame, and, in her reply to the motion to strike, reasserted her constitutional challenges to OCGA 24-7-702 (c). Zarate-Martinez also asserted a new constitutional claim, specifically, that the provisions of OCGA 24-7-702 (c) (2) (A) and (B) were unconstitutionally vague. The trial court struck Hendrix's affidavits, and, without any affidavits from qualified medical experts to support her claim, the trial court dismissed Zarate-Martinez's complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed and did not reach the constitutional issues since the trial court never addressed them. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision and that of the trial court with respect to the application of OCGA 24-7-702 (c) and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the admissibility of Hendrix's testimony. View "Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia" on Justia Law

In November 2001, Appellant Doug Jackson (“Father”) and Appellee Lisa Sanders (“Mother”) divorced in Florida. The final judgment and decree of divorce required Father to pay Mother $1,005 per month for the support of their infant son, based on Father’s then-current annual salary of $250,000. Subsequently, both parties relocated to the Atlanta area, and a decree was entered in Cobb Superior Court in 2007, incorporating the same child support requirement. Subsequently, Father moved for modification of custody and child support, and Mother counterclaimed, seeking an upward modification of child support. The trial court held a bench trial in March 2014 and thereafter entered a final order granting Mother’s motion for directed verdict on the custody modification and granting Mother’s request for an upward modification of child support. The court determined that it was proper to apply OCGA 19-6-15 (f) (4) (B), which addressed the scenario when a parent “fails to produce reliable evidence of income,” thus impeding the trial court’s ability to fairly and reasonably calculate and allocate the parties’ respective child support obligations. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded on this issue, finding that while it was not an abuse of discretion to apply the statute, it was error to not calculate the father's income as mandated by that statute. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and affirmed. View "Jackson v. Sanders" on Justia Law

In May 1999, a jury convicted Shaun Metoyer of numerous counts of armed robbery and related offenses, after which he was sentenced to consecutive life sentences. The Court of Appeals affirmed Metoyer’s convictions and sentences. Metoyer subsequently filed a habeas petition in which he argued, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The habeas court agreed with Metoyer and granted his petition; the Warden appealed. Agreeing that Metoyer received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court. View "Taylor v. Metoyer" on Justia Law

Appellant William Shelton was tried by a jury in the Pike County Superior Court and convicted of malice murder and robbery by force. He was sentenced to life in prison. On direct appeal in 2005, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Shelton’s convictions and rejected, among other things, an evidentiary challenge to venue in Pike County, because, even though conflicting evidence was presented regarding where the injury causing death was inflicted, the body was discovered there. In 2013, Shelton filed a petition for habeas relief, arguing that his due process rights were violated by the instruction to the jury which closely tracked language found in OCGA 17-2-2 (c). Shelton argued that the statute's language instructed the jury to consider the cause of death to have occurred where the body was found and unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proving venue to the defendant. The habeas court found this issue was barred by res judicata because the issue of whether venue was established in Pike County was raised and ruled upon in the direct appeal. The Supreme Court agreed with Shelton that a due process challenge to the jury instruction on venue was neither raised nor ruled upon in his direct appeal. However, the Court concluded that the challenge to the venue instruction as burden-shifting was meritless, and the failure of Shelton's trial and appellate counsel to raise the challenge was neither deficient nor did it cause Shelton prejudice. View "Shelton v. Lee" on Justia Law

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the Chattooga County Superior Court set aside Jason Hopson’s rape conviction due to the conduct of former Fulton County assistant district attorney Ashutosh Joshi, which, the habeas court concluded, violated Hopson’s constitutional right to due process at his trial. Joshi’s conduct after Hopson’s trial was unprofessional, and the Georgia Supreme Court previously ordered that Joshi be publicly reprimanded for his ethical violation. However, the Supreme Court reversed the habeas court’s order granting relief, primarily because the factual findings underlying the habeas court’s conclusions that constitutional violations occurred at Hopson’s trial were clearly erroneous. View "Washington v. Hopson" on Justia Law

Appellant Dag Luquinciette Rhodes was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, along with other related offenses, in connection with the 1998 shooting deaths of Frederick and Yong-Suk Walker. His motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed, arguing that the State withheld exculpatory evidence from him. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rhodes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jermichael Simmons appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, rape, and aggravated sodomy in connection with the 2013 death of Jennifer Sutton. He alleged a number of errors at trial (the admission of certain evidence and the prosecutor's opening statement), in addition to receiving constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel warranted reversal of his convictions. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Simmons' convictions. View "Simmons v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In December 2011, a grand jury indicted Scottie Propst on thirteen charges, including multiple counts of armed robbery, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Propst appealed his convictions and sentences, arguing among other things, the constitutionality of OCGA 16-3-24.2. Propst claimed that OCGA 16-3-24.2 violated his right to equal protection under the Georgia and United States Constitutions. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Propst v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Steven Green appealed after his motion for new trial following his convictions for malice murder, burglary, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was denied. Green was charged in connection with the fatal shooting of Anthony Augustus and the aggravated assault of Shyrome Marshall, as well as the burglary of Marshall’s home. Green's motion was based on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Green contends that he established that counsel had a conflict of interest that significantly and adversely affected his representation. The Supreme Court found that Green failed to establish his counsel's decision was as a result of a conflict of interest, as opposed to a "reasonable strategic decision." Accordingly, Green's conviction was affirmed. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Dwayne Myers appealed after he was convicted for the 2012 felony murder of Edward Davidson. He was indicted with two others. On appeal, Myers challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, and alleged other trial court errors warranted reversal of his conviction. Finding no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Myers' conviction. View "Myers v. Georgia" on Justia Law