Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Christopher Sosebee was convicted by jury of felony murder in the 2020 death of Brian Hayes resulting from a car wreck. A sheriff’s deputy was looking for a black car that had been spraypainted and was missing its front grill, in order to serve arrest warrants on a person who, the day before, had reportedly been driving a vehicle matching that description. After a few minutes of following a SUV at 45 to 50 mph in a 45 mph zone, the deputy activated his blue lights and siren. The SUV accelerated and pulled away from the patrol car. At a curve, the SUV’s right rear tire left the road, then the SUV veered sharply to the left, crossed the oncoming lane, traveled up an embankment, hit some boulders, flipped, landed on top of an approaching truck, and then rolled off. The driver of the truck (Hayes) showed no signs of life when the deputy reached him, and Sosebee’s girlfriend, Tiffany Franklin, who had been a passenger in the SUV during the incident, was very badly injured. A test of Sosebee’s blood after the wreck revealed methamphetamine, at an impairment level, as well as marijuana. Sosebee contended felony murder (Count 1), and homicide by vehicle in the first degree (Count 4), which were both predicated on Count 6, fleeing or attempting to elude, defined exactly the same criminal conduct. Sosebee argued that the rule of lenity therefore required that he be sentenced within the range for homicide by vehicle in the first degree, rather than for felony murder. He also contended his sentence of life without parole violated the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment because neither felony murder nor homicide by vehicle in the first degree, when predicated on fleeing and attempting to elude as in this case, requires malice or specific intent to harm, and because the prior felonies that triggered his sentencing as a recidivist were nonviolent. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sosebee v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Harold Kinlaw was convicted by jury of the malice murder of Felipe Herrera, the aggravated stalking and kidnapping of Kinlaw’s former wife Damaris Kinlaw, and other related crimes. Kinlaw appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated stalking; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to provide an interpreter for a witness at trial; (3) the trial court erred by excluding evidence that Herrera had threatened Kinlaw; (4) the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter and self-defense; and (5) the trial court erred by employing an improper remedy after finding that the State had violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kinlaw v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Donald Steele appealed his convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault in connection with the stabbing death of Kevin McGruder. Steele argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his felony murder conviction and that the trial court should have merged his conviction for aggravated assault into his conviction for felony murder, which was based on aggravated assault. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support Steele’s convictions, but the State conceded his conviction for aggravated assault should have merged into his felony murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Steele’s conviction for felony murder and vacated his aggravated assault conviction. View "Steele v. Georgia" on Justia Law

On May 19, 1996, the body of Bridgett Parker was discovered near an abandoned mobile home. Parker’s throat had been cut, and she had been raped. Soon after, law enforcement officers identified Appellant Octavious Rivera as a possible suspect, and over the next few weeks, they interviewed Rivera regarding Parker’s death, executed a search warrant for his car and residence, and obtained a sample of his DNA; however, they did not arrest Rivera at that time. In February 2018, following the GBI’s reexamination of Parker’s sexual assault kit using new DNA testing methods and technology, Rivera’s DNA was identified as a match for DNA found inside Parker’s vaginal area, and he was arrested. Rivera was later convicted of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, as well as rape. On appeal, Rivera contended the trial court erred: (1) by denying Rivera’s motion for directed verdict on the ground that the State failed to allege the applicable tolling provision or exception to the statute of limitation with respect to Count 3 (aggravated assault) and Count 4 (rape) in the indictment, and on the ground that the statute of limitation on those counts was not tolled; and (2) by permitting the State to admit other-acts evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) and OCGA § 24-4-413 at trial. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Rivera’s felony murder conviction and reversed his rape conviction. View "Rivera v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed a superior court order granting a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Sheriff of Tift County, Gene Scarbrough, in this action brought by Sherrie McBrayer for the wrongful death of her husband, James McBrayer (“the decedent”). The Court of Appeals held that Scarbrough was immune from suit because McBrayer’s complaint did not show that the decedent’s death, which occurred while he was restrained in the back seat of a patrol car, arose from the sheriff’s deputies’ “use” of the patrol car “as a vehicle,” which, under Court of Appeals case law construing OCGA §§ 33-24-51 (b) and 36-92-2, was a prerequisite for a waiver of sovereign immunity for injuries arising from the “negligent use of a covered motor vehicle.” In so holding, the Court of Appeals noted that McBrayer’s complaint did not allege “that the car was running; that any deputy was seated in the car; that any deputy was poised to start the car or transport the decedent to any location;” or that the deputies were otherwise “actively” using the patrol car “as a vehicle. McBrayer thereafter timely petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court for certiorari review. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in limiting the meaning of the word “use” in the phrase “use of a covered motor vehicle” by reading into OCGA §§ 33-24-51 (b) and 36-92-2 the words “actively” and “as a vehicle.” Therefore, it reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "McBrayer, et al. v. Scarbrough" on Justia Law

In January 2018, Bianca Bouie was returning from her lunch break to her workplace, Prodigies Child Care Management, LLC, also known as University Childcare Center (“University Childcare”), when she looked away from the road to scroll through the contacts in her cell phone so that she could call her manager to report that she was running late. While Bouie was distracted, her car crossed the median and caused an accident with a truck that was driven by Andrea Cotton. Cotton filed a personal injury lawsuit against Bouie and later added University Childcare as a defendant, alleging, among other things, that Bouie was acting in furtherance of University Childcare’s business and within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident and that University Childcare was therefore liable under the legal theory of respondeat superior. University Childcare moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion, concluding, in pertinent part, that Bouie was not acting in furtherance of University Childcare’s business and within the scope of her employment when the accident occurred. Cotton appealed, and a divided Court of Appeals panel reversed, holding that under the “special circumstances exception” to the general rule that employees do not act in furtherance of an employer’s business and within the scope of employment when they are commuting to and from work or when they are on a lunch break, and under two of its cases applying that “exception,” there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to the issue of liability under respondeat superior. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ “special circumstances exception,” as well as the multi-factor test the court developed for applying that “exception.” The Supreme Court also concluded that the two cases on which the Court of Appeals relied in applying the “special circumstances exception” used imprecise language regarding the respondeat-superior test, and the Supreme Court disapproved such language. In light of these conclusions, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’s opinion and remanded the case to that court so that it could apply the proper respondeat-superior test in the first instance. View "Prodigies Child Care Management, LLC v. Cotton" on Justia Law

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia certified two questions to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding OCGA § 51-1-11(c). Although product-liability claims were generally subject to a ten-year statute of repose in Georgia, the statute of repose did not apply to negligence claims “arising out of conduct which manifests a willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life or property.” The federal district court asked: (1) whether, under OCGA § 51-1-11(c), “reckless” conduct was a standalone exception to OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2)’s ten-year statute of repose; and (2) if so, how “reckless” conduct was defined. The Supreme Court answered the first question in the affirmative: under OCGA § 51-1-11(c), reckless disregard for life or property was a standalone exception to OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2)’s ten-year statute of repose. Thus, OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2)’s statute of repose does not apply to a product-liability claim sounding in negligence that “aris[es] out of conduct which manifests . . . reckless . . . disregard for life or property.” The Court answered the second question that “reckless . . . disregard for life or property,” under OCGA § 51-1-11(c), carries a meaning that closely resembles the Restatement (First) of Torts’ definition of “Reckless Disregard of Safety.” Specifically, an actor’s “conduct . . . manifests a . . . reckless . . . disregard for life or property,” under OCGA § 51-1-11(c), if the actor “intentionally does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable [person] to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of [harm to another’s life or property] but also involves a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to [the other’s life or property].” View "Ford Motor Co. v. Cosper" on Justia Law

Leon Adams IV (“Leon”) was convicted by jury of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Laron Lowe and the aggravated assault of Ronda Dobson. Leon contended: (1) the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because counsel had an actual conflict of interest arising out of his joint representation of Leon and his co-defendant and brother, Isaiah Adams. For the reasons set forth below, we discern no reversible error and affirm the judgment of conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Adams' convictions. View "Adams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Nuwrulhaqq Hamilton was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Antonio Felton. On appeal, Hamilton argued: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict as to the counts of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; and (2) the trial court plainly erred by failing to give, and his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request, a jury charge on Hamilton’s good character. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Hamilton’s convictions. View "Hamilton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In April 2019, Kevin Roberts applied to Judge Clarence Cuthpert, Jr., probate judge for Rockdale County, for a weapons carry license pursuant to OCGA § 16-11-129. Judge Cuthpert denied Roberts’s application, finding that Roberts’s criminal history revealed five arrests between 1992 and 2004 for aggravated assault, affray, obstruction of the judiciary, cruelty to children in the first degree, simple battery, battery, and family violence battery. Judge Cuthpert noted that Roberts’s criminal history did not list the dispositions of Roberts’s arrests for obstruction of the judiciary or simple battery, but the other arrests had dispositions of not prosecuted, dismissed, or nolle prossed. Judge Cuthpert concluded that Roberts “lack[ed] good moral character[4] . . . [d]ue to his arrest[s] for several violent offenses” and that “the court need[ed] additional information[, including police reports,] to determine if this application should be approved.” After reconsideration, Judge Cuthpert again denied the petition, concluding that, “[b]ased upon [Roberts’s] history of violent offenses and failure to comply with the Court’s instructions to provide the incident reports and dispositions for [his previous five arrests],” Roberts was “not of good moral character.” Roberts thereafter filed a complaint seeking mandamus relief against Judge Cuthpert “in his official capacity,” declaratory judgment against Judge Cuthpert “in both his official and individual capacities,” and costs and attorney’s fees. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the General Assembly waived sovereign immunity for claims brought under OCGA § 16-11-129 (j) and that the Separation of Powers Provision of the Georgia Constitution was not implicated by the recovery of costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, against a probate judge pursuant to OCGA § 16-11-129 (j) because processing a weapons carry license did not involve the exercise of judicial power. The Court also concluded the probate judge in this case waived the defense of judicial immunity on the costs-and-fees claim asserted against him in his official capacity. View "Roberts v. Cuthper" on Justia Law