Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In October 2022, Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Gwinnett County, challenging a 2015 county ordinance regulating "Adult Establishments." Starship, which owns two stores in Gwinnett County, had previously filed a similar lawsuit in 2017, which it voluntarily dismissed. The county, however, maintained its counterclaim, and the trial court granted the county a permanent injunction restraining Starship from "regularly making more than 100 sexual devices available for sale" at each of its locations. Starship appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of a permanent injunction against Starship.In the second lawsuit, Starship invoked a constitutional amendment that waives sovereign immunity for certain lawsuits, including lawsuits against a county for declaratory judgment and related injunctive relief. The trial court dismissed Starship’s lawsuit, holding that it was barred by sovereign immunity and by res judicata. Starship appealed to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia due to the novel constitutional question involved.The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that although the constitutional waiver of sovereign immunity applied to Starship’s lawsuit, the suit was barred by res judicata. The court found that Starship's lawsuit sought relief from the county's prospective acts of enforcement, which will occur after January 1, 2021, and therefore the county’s sovereign immunity was waived under the constitutional amendment. However, the court also found that the lawsuit was barred by res judicata because the constitutional matters Starship now sought to raise could have been raised in the previous lawsuit. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the lawsuit. View "STARSHIP ENTERPRISES OF ATLANTA, INC. v. GWINNETT COUNTY" on Justia Law

Dallas McCabe and Akhemu Dunston were convicted for felony murder and criminal attempt to sell marijuana in connection with the shooting death of Joseph Jackson. The crimes occurred on July 16, 2019, and the two were indicted on March 10, 2021, for malice murder, three counts of felony murder, and one count each of criminal attempt to commit robbery by force, criminal attempt to sell marijuana, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After a jury trial, McCabe and Dunston were found guilty on all counts except malice murder and aggravated assault. They were each sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and a concurrent five-year prison term for criminal attempt to sell marijuana.McCabe and Dunston appealed their convictions, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdicts and that the trial court erred by denying their motion for mistrial based on juror misconduct. McCabe separately contended that the trial court erred by denying his request to strike jurors for misconduct and that trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. Dunston separately contended that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury more fully on proximate cause and in failing to sever his trial from McCabe’s. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions. View "DUNSTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Nicholas Bernard Head, who was convicted for malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Quintavia Wade. Head argued that his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment were violated when the State read into evidence prior testimony given about the murder weapon by Emily Bagwell, the State’s firearms expert. He also claimed that the trial court committed plain error in allowing another firearms examiner, Kyle Wheelus, to testify as a “verifier” of Bagwell’s analysis about the bullet recovered in Wade’s autopsy.Head was initially indicted for malice murder and other crimes in connection with Wade’s death in 2018. That indictment was nolle prossed. In 2021, a Clarke County grand jury indicted Head for the same crimes. The jury acquitted Head of the counts involving Williams and found him guilty on all remaining counts. The trial court sentenced Head to serve life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder and consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling fifteen years for two of the weapons charges. Head filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.In the Supreme Court of Georgia, the court concluded that even if there was error with regard to the admission of Bagwell’s prior testimony about the murder weapon, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence against Head, including the testimony of two police officers who witnessed the shooting. The court also found no plain error in allowing Wheelus’s testimony as it was based on his own ballistics analysis. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "HEAD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Shanadore Harmon and Jermaz Lawson had an argument that escalated into a physical fight. During the altercation, Harmon fired a gun into the car Lawson was driving, killing Brittany Trantham, a passenger in the vehicle. Harmon was subsequently charged with malice murder of Trantham, aggravated assault of Lawson, and three firearms offenses. A Richmond County grand jury returned an indictment on all counts, and Harmon was found guilty by a jury trial.Harmon's conviction and sentencing were upheld by the trial court, despite multiple amendments to his motion for a new trial. Harmon appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of Trantham’s murder or the related firearms offenses, that the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict on the aggravated assault and firearm offense related to Lawson, and that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not raise a hearsay objection to the admission of Lawson’s recorded statement to police.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Harmon's convictions and sentence. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support each of Harmon’s convictions related to the murder of Trantham and the denial of his motion for directed verdict on the counts related to the assault of Lawson. The court also concluded that Harmon failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the admission of Lawson’s statement to police. The court noted that even without Lawson’s statement, the evidence against Harmon was still very strong, including testimony from two witnesses who saw Harmon stand behind Trantham’s car and then heard gunshots, as well as evidence that Harmon was found soon after the shooting with the gun that fired both the fatal bullet and all the bullets collected from the crime scene. View "HARMON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In July 2019, James Hill, III, was convicted of malice murder for the strangling death of Kelly Marshall. The evidence presented at trial showed that Hill had a history of physically abusing Marshall, threatened to kill her the evening before her death, was the last person to see her alive, attempted to flee law enforcement officers, and lied to law enforcement officers about his whereabouts on the night of Marshall's death. Hill appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motions for mistrial, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.Previously, a Newton County grand jury had indicted Hill for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. In July 2019, a jury found Hill guilty of all counts and he was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder. Hill filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court in February 2023.In the Supreme Court of Georgia, Hill's conviction was affirmed. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that Hill murdered Marshall. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hill’s motions for mistrial. Finally, the court rejected Hill's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that Hill failed to show that a motion to strike certain jurors for cause would have succeeded or that he was prejudiced by his counsel's actions. View "HILL v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, Lekievius Eleby was convicted for felony murder and other crimes related to a home invasion that resulted in the death of Danavan Bussey. The crimes occurred on December 5, 2010, and Eleby, along with Shameik Spinks and Bryce Smith, were indicted on multiple counts, including felony murder, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and tampering with evidence. Smith and Spinks pled guilty to their charges before trial and testified against Eleby. A jury found Eleby guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and armed robbery, among other sentences for the remaining counts.Before the Supreme Court of Georgia, Eleby challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the multiplicity of the indictment, the trial court's exclusion of evidence of past recollection recorded, the denial of his motion to suppress certain pretrial and trial identifications, and the sentences for the aggravated assaults, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possession offense. He also claimed that the prosecutor made improper and prejudicial comments in his closing argument and that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to make certain objections at trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated Eleby's convictions and sentences for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The court found that the remaining claims were either not preserved for appeal, without merit, or did not require reversal. The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Eleby's convictions and that the trial court did not err in denying Eleby's motion to suppress the pretrial and trial identifications. The court also found that the trial court did not err in sentencing Eleby for the separate assaults of Holmes and Johnson, as those counts did not merge with each other. However, the court agreed with Eleby that the trial court should have merged the offense of conspiracy to commit armed robbery with the conviction for felony murder predicated on armed robbery. View "ELEBY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves three defendants, Saturnino Andre Lopez-Cardona, Wilmer Mendez, and Gerson Suruy, who were charged with crimes related to the stabbing death of Lucas Andres Cruz-Guzman. Each defendant filed pretrial motions to suppress statements they made during separate interviews with the same police officer. The trial court granted their motions, concluding that the defendants did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive their rights under Miranda v. Arizona before they made the statements. The State appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court's conclusion regarding Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements was incorrect and should be reversed. However, the State conceded that the trial court properly suppressed Suruy’s statement.The trial court had found that the defendants did not audibly answer when asked if they understood their rights, and that neither defendant was asked if they waived their rights or wanted to talk to the police. The court also noted that there was evidence of potential mistakes in the translation of the Miranda rights, but did not make specific findings on this point.The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the trial court's orders suppressing Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements and remanded the case back to the trial court for further, specific findings. The court held that the trial court's findings were not sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful review of its rulings suppressing Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements. However, the court affirmed the trial court's order suppressing Suruy’s statement, deferring to the State’s discretion not to challenge that order. View "THE STATE v. LOPEZ-CARDONA" on Justia Law

The case revolves around William Jordan Ford, who was convicted for the shooting death of Travron Gill. Ford was indicted for malice murder, three counts of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer. The jury found Ford guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, among other sentences. Ford filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.Prior to the case reaching the Supreme Court of Georgia, Ford had been convicted in a lower court and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for malice murder and armed robbery. He also claimed that the trial court erred in allowing a forensic witness to testify about aspects of a blood test that the witness did not perform and that the court should have granted him a mistrial because the forensic witness was not timely disclosed as a witness.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Ford’s convictions. It also ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing the forensic witness to testify or in denying Ford’s mistrial motion. The court concluded that any error in admitting certain exhibits into evidence was harmless. The court also rejected Ford's argument that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence exhibits containing cellphone data extracted from four cellphones, stating that any error in their admission was harmless. View "FORD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Mark Joseph Tatum, who was convicted of a "peeping Tom" violation and invasion of privacy for secretly recording a female neighbor through her window. Tatum was arrested shortly after the incident and indicted by a Madison County grand jury for the "peeping Tom" violation, invasion of privacy, and tampering with evidence. Tatum filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his cell phone, which was denied by the trial court. Following a bench trial, the court found Tatum guilty of the "peeping Tom" violation and invasion of privacy but acquitted him of tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to five years in prison and five years of probation, to be served consecutively.The Court of Appeals affirmed Tatum's conviction. The court assumed that the arresting officer's warrantless viewing of the video on Tatum's cell phone constituted an illegal search, but concluded that the evidence from Tatum's cell phone was admissible under the independent source doctrine. The court reasoned that the affidavit supporting the warrant application contained evidence sufficient to support a finding of probable cause even after excluding information obtained from the officer's warrantless search.The Supreme Court of Georgia granted Tatum's petition for a writ of certiorari. The court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case with direction to vacate the judgment of the trial court and to remand to that court for further proceedings. The court held that when applying the independent source doctrine, courts must consider whether the State's decision to seek a search warrant was prompted by a prior unlawful search. The court found that the record on appeal did not reflect that the trial court considered whether the warrant application was prompted in this way. View "TATUM v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In 2020, Albert Omstead contracted BPG Inspection, LLC to inspect a property he and his wife, Jessique Omstead, intended to purchase. The contract included a one-year limitation clause preventing Mr. Omstead from suing BPG Inspection or its employees more than one year after the inspection. After the inspection, the Omsteads purchased the property. Over a year later, Mr. Omstead died when a retaining wall on the property collapsed. Mrs. Omstead filed a wrongful death suit against BPG Inspection and one of its inspectors.The trial court found the one-year limitation unenforceable, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted review to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in approving the one-year limitation and whether the limitation is void as against public policy.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court found that the one-year limitation was enforceable and not void as against public policy. The court rejected Mrs. Omstead's arguments that the limitation only applied to contract claims and not claims involving bodily injury or wrongful death, that the limitation functioned as a “contractually-effectuated statute of repose,” and that the limitation impermissibly voided “professional standards of conduct.” The court concluded that the one-year limitation did not violate OCGA § 13-8-2 (b) and was not void as against public policy. View "OMSTEAD v. BPG INSPECTION, LLC" on Justia Law