Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Three cases presented an opportunity for the Georgia Supreme Court to explore the scope and nature of the liability faced by premises owners, occupiers, and security contractors in cases involving personal injuries arising from third-party criminal conduct. Although the underlying appeals varied with respect to their facts and specific issues presented, the resolution of each appeal "necessitates consideration of fundamental principles of premises liability under Georgia law." The Court clarified that the reasonable foreseeability of a third-party criminal act is a determination linked to a proprietor’s duty to keep the premises and approaches safe under OCGA § 51-3-1, and that the totality of the circumstances informs whether a third-party criminal act was reasonably foreseeable. Moreover, the question of reasonable foreseeability is generally reserved to the trier of fact, but the trial court may resolve the issue as a matter of law where no rational juror could determine the issue in favor of the non-moving party. View "Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael" on Justia Law

Jose Basulto appealed his convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault stemming from an incident in which he drove his truck into several pedestrians after a bar fight. Basulto’s actions resulted in the deaths of two of the pedestrians, and left a third seriously injured. Basulto’s only argument on appeal was that the trial court erred by refusing to remove a juror who revealed new information about the juror’s criminal history after being selected for the jury. Because it found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to remove the juror, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Basulto v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants Sarah Thompson, Kevin Muldowney, and Edward Metz filed three, virtually identical complaints in their respective counties on December 6, 2022, alleging that the voting system used that day in the runoff election for a United States Senate seat did not comply with Georgia law. The trial courts entered orders either dismissing the complaints or denying relief. Because the complaints did not name any defendant and because Appellants failed to serve any defendant, the trial courts correctly determined that they had no authority to grant the relief sought. Accordingly, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in all three cases. View "In re: December 6, 2022 General Election Ballot" on Justia Law

Quavion Rountree appealed his conviction for malice murder in connection with the 2019 shooting death of Anahitdeep Singh Sandhu. Rountree contended on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter and on mutual combat. Because Rountree failed to carry his burden of showing plain error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rountree v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Demarcus Brinkley was charged with the kidnapping, attempted rape, and murder of Mariam Khalid Abdulrab. After the police identified him as a suspect for those crimes, Brinkley fled, leading officers in a high speed car chase. During the chase, Brinkley apparently told his mother on the phone that he did not want to pull over because he did not want to go back to prison. The trial court granted Brinkley’s pretrial motion to exclude this statement under OCGA § 24-4-403, and the State appealed. Because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court misapplied the Rule 403 standard, it vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further consideration under the correct standard. View "Georgia v. Brinkley" on Justia Law

Reginald Johnson was convicted of felony murder and first-degree cruelty to children in connection with the 2016 death of his six-month-old daughter, Jordan. On appeal, Johnson contended that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence and strongly against the weight of the evidence; (3) the trial court erred by admitting certain photographs taken before and during the autopsy; (4) the trial court erred by limiting the defense’s cross-examination of Jordan’s mother; (5) the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony by the medical examiner; (6) the trial court erred by excluding testimony about the defense’s unsuccessful effort to procure a witness; and (7) the trial court committed plain error by failing to give a jury instruction on accident. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Johnson's conviction. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants Durell Muse, Darious Harris, and Darious’s Jujuane Harris, appealed their convictions following a joint trial for malice murder and other crimes stemming from the shooting death of Antonio Clements, the shooting of Clements’ girlfriend, Kendra Clopton, and the firing of shots that struck a vehicle occupied by Silento Bell and Yolanda Davis. On appeal, all Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support certain of their convictions; contended that the trial court violated the continuing witness rule by allowing the jury to watch surveillance videos in the jury room during deliberations; and claimed that the trial court violated certain of their rights when addressing notes from the jury. In addition, Muse and Darious contended the trial court erred by failing to exclude evidence extracted from Muse’s cell phone; Muse contended his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a hearsay objection to testimony from a State’s witness; Darious and Jujuane contended the trial court erred in failing to sever their trials; and Darious contended he was entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred in failing to exclude the testimony of a State’s witness and because the State represented during the motion for new trial proceedings that the record was incomplete. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in all three appeals. View "Muse, et al. v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Philip Pugh entered a plea of guilty but mentally ill to malice murder in connection with the shooting death of Vincent Newsome. On appeal, Pugh claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty but mentally ill plea for three reasons: (1) the trial court should have sua sponte conducted a competency hearing at the time of his guilty plea and that the failure to do so violated his procedural due process rights; (2) his substantive due process rights were violated by the trial court’s acceptance of the plea because Pugh was not competent to enter the plea and did not enter the plea voluntarily; and (3) he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in that plea counsel failed to request a competency hearing. The Georgia Supreme Court found that given Pugh’s repeated assertions at the time of the plea that he was being threatened and forced into entering the plea, the State failed to meet its burden to show that his plea was knowing and voluntary. The Court therefore reversed Pugh’s conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pugh v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Anthony Perryman-Henderson was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Tanaya Dunlap. On appeal, Perryman-Henderson contended: (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to “correct” the medical examiner’s testimony about the range the fatal shot was fired from; and (2) the trial court committed plain error by commenting on the State’s characterization of the medical examiner’s range-of-fire testimony in a way that could be taken as endorsement of it. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Perryman-Henderson's convictions. View "Perryman-Henderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rico King was convicted by jury of the 2018 malice murder of Michael Brooks and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony based on shooting Brooks. King argued on appeal: (1) that the trial court erroneously denied King’s motion for a new trial on the “general grounds”; (2) the trial court should not have allowed witness testimony and closing arguments about voluntary intoxication; (3) the trial court plainly erred by admitting character evidence about King’s alleged past alcohol and illegal drug use; and (4) that King received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed King's convictions. View "King v. Georgia" on Justia Law