Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michelle Hightower was charged with malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Michael McGee. Hightower’s trial on these charges began March 9, 2020, and four days later, on March 13, after the Chief Judge of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit issued an order declaring a judicial emergency due to the continued transmission of the COVID-19 virus, the trial court declared a mistrial in Hightower’s case, over defense counsel’s objections. Hightower subsequently filed a plea in bar and motion to dismiss the indictment, asserting that further prosecution of her case was barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions because there was no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial and because the trial court did not exercise its discretion or consider reasonable alternatives prior to declaring the mistrial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Plea in Bar on May 21, 2021, and Hightower appealed. Because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial, judgment was affirmed. View "Hightower v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In October 2016, Taiquan Mitchell and Deon Dorsey were jointly tried and found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Marcus Waters, Jr. On appeal, Mitchell argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the general grounds and in denying his motion for a mistrial after two jurors were seen being served alcoholic beverages during a lunch break. Dorsey separately argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crimes for which he was convicted. The Georgia Supreme Court consolidated these appeals for the purpose of issuing an opinion, and finding no reversible error, affirmed the convictions. View "Mitchell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

During Joseph Watkins’s murder trial, a juror conducted a “drive test” during a break in deliberations to see whether the defendant could have been physically present at the time and place the victim was shot. The next day, the jury voted to convict Watkins of felony murder and other crimes, and he was sentenced to life in prison. Years later, Watkins’s counsel learned about the juror’s misconduct and filed the habeas petition in this case. The habeas court ultimately granted relief on the juror-misconduct claim and two other grounds. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded Watkins has shown that the juror’s misconduct caused him actual prejudice—for at least that juror, her drive test “proved” a key and heavily disputed piece of the State’s burden of proof against Watkins—and affirmed the grant of habeas relief on the juror-misconduct claim. View "Ballinger v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Ronald Smith was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Charles Adams. Smith appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts, that the trial court erred in admitting Smith’s custodial statements and in giving or refusing to give certain jury instructions, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because Smith’s claims of error were without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After an order was issued setting the execution of Virgil Delano Presnell, Jr., the Federal Defender Program, Inc. filed a breach of contract action against the State of Georgia and Christopher Carr in his official capacity as Attorney General (collectively, the “State”) alleging that the State breached a contract governing the resumption of the execution of death sentences in Georgia after the COVID-19 pandemic. The State contended the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and in granting the Appellees’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and an interlocutory injunction. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that an e-mail exchange between a deputy attorney general and certain capital defense attorneys, including an attorney employed by the Federal Defender, constituted a written contract sufficient to waive sovereign immunity in this matter, and the Supreme Court in turn conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the equities in granting the Appellees’ motion for injunctive relief. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Georgia, et al. v. Federal Defender Program, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Holly Harvey appealed a trial court order denying her motion for an out-of-time appeal, denying her motion to modify her sentences, and dismissing her motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. In 2004, Harvey was indicted on two counts of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, and one count of armed robbery in connection with the August 2, 2004, stabbing deaths of her grandparents. After reviewing the record, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court properly dismissed her motion to withdraw her guilty pleas because it was untimely filed. Because her motion for an out-of-time appeal and motion to modify her sentences also should have been dismissed, the Court vacated that part of the trial court’s order denying these motions and remanded to the trial court with direction. View "Harvey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Georgia Supreme Court's review centered on whether a grandmother’s action for visitation rights to her biological granddaughter (the minor child of her deceased daughter) under OCGA § 19-7-3 was precluded by the adoption of the child by her stepmother, and whether certain subsections of the grandparent visitation statute were unconstitutional, among other issues. The Supreme Court concluded that: (1) the grandmother was authorized to pursue an action for visitation rights to her granddaughter despite the adoption; and (2) with respect to the constitutional challenges, the Court needed only to consider the constitutionality of one of the three subsections at issue—which it held to be constitutional. Accordingly, the trial court's rulings were affirmed. View "Barhhill, et al. v. Alford" on Justia Law

Danyel Smith was convicted of the murder of his infant son based on a theory of “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS). Smith argued that the science regarding diagnosis of brain injuries in infants has changed so much since his trial that he was entitled to a new trial based on a new expert affidavit ruling out battery or shaking as the cause of the baby’s death. The trial court rejected that argument and denied Smith’s extraordinary motion for new trial without a hearing. Because Smith’s extraordinary motion alleged facts that, if proven, could warrant relief, the trial court was not authorized to deny the motion without a hearing. The Georgia Supreme Court therefore vacated the trial court’s ruling on the motion and remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Robert Caviston was convicted by jury of malice murder and arson in the first degree in connection with the death of his 92-year-old mother, Agnes Caviston. Caviston contended the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the general grounds. He also argued the trial court erred in admitting harmful evidence of a fantasy novel that he had written, titled “The Philosophy of Murder,” thus requiring a new trial. Because Caviston failed to show reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Caviston v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Willie Lewis Turner II challenges his 2017 convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in connection with the shooting death of Travalas Acres. Turner argued the evidence against him was not credible and therefore insufficient to support his convictions. When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to satisfy constitutional due process, the Georgia Supreme Court does not assess the credibility of the witnesses. When properly viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Turner's convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Accordingly, the convictions were affirmed. View "Turner v. Georgia" on Justia Law