Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Nundra v. Georgia
Thaddas Nundra was convicted of murder and many other serious charges related to the 2017 shooting death of Herbert Moore. On appeal, he argued the trial court made four key errors, and the cumulative effect of those errors required reversal. Assuming the trial court made at least two errors as alleged, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded these errors were harmless, both individually and cumulatively. With regard to the remaining errors, the Court determined Nundra did not show it was plain error to allow the State to introduce “TrueAllele” DNA evidence without a baseline of how likely a sample was to match a random person. And certain arguments made by the prosecution "were certainly inflammatory," but based on permissible inferences from evidence in the record. The Court therefore affirmed Nundra's convictions. View "Nundra v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Johnson v. Georgia
Garry Johnson was convicted of malice murder and robbery in connection with the 1997 killing of Irene Shields. Johnson was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole plus a consecutive 20-year term. For years, the Georgia Supreme Court has applied an absolute rule that anything filed by a criminal defendant on his or her own while still represented by counsel was a “legal nullity.” In this case, the Georgia Court asked the parties and amici whether that rule was correct: is a pro se filing made by a defendant who is actually or presumptively represented by counsel always a nullity? The Court now answers that question in the negative: although a defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to represent himself while he is also represented by counsel, nothing in the State Constitution or Code prohibited such “hybrid representation. ...Stare decisis does not require us to perpetuate a legal rule that is so obviously and harmfully wrong, and so we overrule our past decisions to the extent they held that a pro se filing by a counseled defendant is always a legal nullity.” View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Georgia, et al. v. Sass Group, LLC et al.
In November of 2020, the people of Georgia, through the results of a ballot question posed in the general election, amended the State Constitution to allow for a specific waiver of sovereign immunity. This new waiver allowed citizens to sue the State for declaratory relief ("Paragraph V"). To the extent that citizens obtain a favorable ruling on their claim for declaratory relief, they could then also seek injunctive relief to “enforce [the court’s] judgment.” To take advantage of this new waiver of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, however, the Constitution provided that such actions had to be brought “exclusively” against the State. When a plaintiff’s suit violated this exclusivity provision, the Constitution required the suit be dismissed. In the underlying appeal, the plaintiffs’ suit named a defendant for whom a waiver was not provided by Paragraph V. Accordingly, the Constitution required the suit to be dismissed. The Georgia Supreme Court therefore vacated the trial court’s grant of an interlocutory injunction, reversed the denial of the State’s motion to dismiss, and remanded this case with direction that it be dismissed. View "Georgia, et al. v. Sass Group, LLC et al." on Justia Law
Taylor v. Devereux Foundation, Inc. et al.
Fifteen-year-old Tia McGee was sexually assaulted by an employee working at a behavioral health facility operated by the Devereux Foundation ("Devereux"). At trial, Devereux admitted that “Devereux breached the legal duty of ordinary care owed to Tia McGee for her safety from sexual assault and that the breach of Devereux’s legal duty contributed to Jimmy Singleterry’s sexual assault of Tia McGee.” The jury returned a verdict for $10,000,000 in compensatory damages, finding both Devereux and Singleterry, the employee who assaulted McGee, at fault, and $50,000,000 in punitive damages against Devereux. The trial court ultimately reduced the jury’s punitive-damage award from $50,000,000 to $250,000, consistent with the statutory cap on punitive damages found in OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (g). Jo-Ann Taylor, the executor of McGee's estate, contended that OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (g) violated the rights to trial by jury, separation of powers, and equal protection guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that Taylor did not satisfy her burden of proving there was a "clear and palpable" conflict between the statute and the Georgia Constitution. Thus, the trial court's orders were affirmed. View "Taylor v. Devereux Foundation, Inc. et al." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Personal Injury
Inquiry concerning Judge Christian Coomer
The Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) Hearing Panel recommended to remove Judge Christian Coomer from his seat on the Court of Appeals. In late 2020, the JQC brought formal charges against Judge Coomer. The charges, as later amended, comprised 36 counts alleging that Judge Coomer violated three provisions of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct (“the Code”): (1) in his capacity as a lawyer in dealings with a client including allegations of substantial “dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation;” (2) he allegedly used campaign funds for impermissible purposes and failed to disclose certain expenditures; and (3) he allegedly engaged in several transactions in which he declared a “fictitious” transfer to his campaign account and misrepresented his liabilities and assets in a mortgage application. Many of the allegations involved conduct that occurred exclusively before Judge Coomer was a judge or judicial candidate. A few days after formal charges were filed, Judge Coomer was suspended from office pending resolution of this matter. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the Hearing Panel made at least two critical legal errors that prevented the Court from resolving the matter on this record. Accordingly, the case was remanded for the Hearing Panel to make new findings in the light of the law as it actually existed, and to do so quickly. View "Inquiry concerning Judge Christian Coomer" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Legal Ethics
Behl v. Georgia
Edward Behl was convicted by jury for felony murder and a weapons charge stemming from the 2017 death of Joseph Billings, a fellow resident of a homeless encampment. Behl argued for a new trial on the grounds that: (1) the trial court plainly erred in not charging the jury on voluntary manslaughter; and (2) Behl was unable to view digital discovery while incarcerated and while exercising the right to self-representation. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not plainly err in failing to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter, and that Behl did not preserve the issue of access to discovery. Accordingly, judgment and conviction were affirmed. View "Behl v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Hood v. Georgia
Appellant Larry Hood challenged a superior court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Angela Ritter Davis. Hood claimed his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because his plea counsel made an affirmative misrepresentation about the collateral consequences of his plea (i.e., his parole eligibility). After review of the superior court’s record, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Hood’s motion. However, because the superior court committed sentencing errors, the Supreme Court vacated two of Hood’s convictions and remanded for resentencing. View "Hood v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Williams v. Georgia
Israel Timothy Williams was convicted by jury of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Brandon Colson. Williams challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, contended his trial counsel was ineffective, and argued that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on coercion. Because the Georgia Supreme Court found Williams failed to carry his burden of showing reversible error, it affirmed his convictions as well as the trial court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Allen v. Georgia
Twice previously, Dennis Allaben appealed his conviction for malice murder arising from the strangulation death of his wife, Maureen. On each appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, and the case was retried. After Allaben’s third trial was held in December 2016, a jury found him guilty of malice murder, and he again appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for murder and that the State failed to prove venue as required by OCGA § 17-2-2. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "Allen v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Monroe v. Georgia
Steven Monroe appealed his convictions for malice murder and related offenses arising out of the 2014 shooting death of Clayton Cross and aggravated assaults of Kenneth Minson, Darius Minson, Willie Calhoun, Muhammad Clark, Dominique Ellis, and Craig Harris. Monroe claimed on appeal the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for violating Georgia’s Gang Act and his convictions on all counts related to Clark. Monroe further alleged the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial based upon alleged juror misconduct, erred by failing to charge the jury on self-defense, improperly admitted opinion evidence at trial, and erred during sentencing. Monroe also alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Georgia Supreme Court determined the trial court erred in calculating Monroe's sentence, but affirmed the convictions in all other respects. The case was remanded for correction of Monroe's sentence. View "Monroe v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law