Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jordy Moore was convicted of malice murder and other crimes arising from what began as a group fistfight and ended with the shooting death of Zyshonne Hindsman. On appeal, Moore argued his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to conduct an adequate voir dire, making incorrect statements of fact and law in his opening statement, failing to object to the testimony of the victim’s grieving mother, and failing to adequately cross-examine certain prosecution witnesses about their pending criminal charges. He also contended the trial court impermissibly participated in Young’s decision to testify against Moore, and that the court violated OCGA § 17-8-57, which prohibited a judge from expressing or intimating to the jury the judge’s opinion as to whether a fact at issue has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused. After review of the record, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Moore’s convictions and sentence. View "Moore v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Patricko Davis was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the July 2014 shooting death of Takeenan Williams. On appeal Davis argued: (1) he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial; (2) the trial court erred by declining to admit “reverse 404 (b)” evidence about a later crime committed by a friend of Williams who was present when Williams was shot, which Davis claimed was relevant to the friend’s “intent” and “opportunity” to carry a gun; and (3) trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to call a bullet- trajectory expert to support Davis’s self-defense claim and in his handling of the reverse 404 (b) evidence. The Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to any of Davis' claims and affirmed his convictions. View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants Tyree Tabor and Donny Spear were tried together and convicted of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Nicholas Miller. Although the defendants raised different contentions on appeal, their appeals were consolidated for purposes of issuing an opinion. Tabor contended his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Spear contended his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for severance. Finding no reversible error in any of these contentions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Tabor v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted review in this case to establish precedent on the issue of whether a trial court could refuse to follow appellate court precedent based solely on the trial court's disagreement with that precedent. The Supreme Court held that trial courts indeed were bound by the precedents of the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, because the Supreme Court perceived no reason for this appeal to proceed on its merits beyond addressing that issue, it vacated its order granting the application for discretionary appeal, denied the application for discretionary appeal, and dismissed this appeal, thus leaving the trial court's judgment in this case undisturbed. View "Esposito v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jared Carter was convicted of malice murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony in connection with the death of his grandmother, 81-year-old Valeria Mann. On appeal, Appellant alleged that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony in violation of OCGA § 24-8-807 and the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Carter v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Tia Young was convicted by jury for the 2017 shooting death of her husband George. On appeal, Young contended: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions as a matter of constitutional due process; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her pretrial motion to sever her trial from the trial of her co-defendant, Harvey Lee; and (3) that the trial court erred by improperly charging the jury on the counts for criminal attempt to tamper with evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Young v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Darrell Eaker was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Audra Eaker. On appeal, he argued: (1) he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) the trial court erred in denying Eaker’s motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Eaker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2017, a jury found Damien McElrath guilty but mentally ill as to felony murder but not guilty by reason of insanity as to malice murder following a single, continuous encounter between McElrath and his mother, Diane McElrath. The trial court did not recognize the verdicts as repugnant and accepted them. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the verdicts were repugnant, and vacated the verdicts and remanded McElrath’s case for retrial. On remand, McElrath filed a plea in bar, alleging that retrial was precluded on double jeopardy grounds, and the trial court denied this motion. Appealing the double jeopardy motion, McElrath argued that the Georgia Supreme Court should have reversed rather than vacated his felony murder conviction in his previous appeal. He also challenged the trial court’s ruling on his plea in bar, contending that retrial on all of the counts was barred because the jury previously found him not guilty by reason of insanity on the malice murder count. The Supreme Court determined both these arguments failed and affirmed the trial court’s denial of McElrath’s plea in bar. View "McElrath v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Mia Ammons was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. She largely refused to cooperate when the state trooper who pulled her over sought to perform a preliminary breath test and various field sobriety tests, and she later refused to consent to a blood test for which no search warrant had been obtained by the police. She claimed that any use of evidence of her refusal to perform the breath and field sobriety tests violated her right against self-incrimination under the Georgia Constitution. She similarly argued that two Georgia statutes that permitted evidence of her refusal to consent to a blood test to be used against her "violate the General Assembly’s constitutional duty to enact laws that protect Georgia citizens in the full enjoyment of their rights, privileges, and immunities as citizens." The Georgia Supreme Court found Ammons had the right to refuse to perform the preliminary breath test and the field sobriety tests under the Georgia Constitution, and evidence of her refusals could not be introduced at her trial. The Court also determined that the Georgia Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause did not bar the admission of evidence that she refused to consent to a blood test. The Court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s denial of Ammons’s motion to suppress. View "Ammons v. Georgia" on Justia Law

William Winslow was convicted on four counts of sexual exploitation of children in connection with his possession of two videos depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The videos were found on his laptop computer by law enforcement. On appeal, Winslow: (1) argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his laptop; (2) made facial and as-applied challenges to the sentencing scheme of OCGA § 16-12-100 (f) (1); and (3) contended the trial court erred by failing to merge all counts of the indictment together for sentencing under Edvalson v. Georgia, 849 SE2d 204 (2020). After review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Winslow's convictions, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing: the trial court should have sentenced Winslow on only one count and merged the remaining counts for sentencing. View "Winslow v. Georgia" on Justia Law