Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jacarey Reese challenged his conviction for felony murder in connection with the 2018 shooting death of Stacy Devero. Appellant’s first trial ended with a hung jury. At his second trial, the defense argued both that Appellant did not shoot Devero and that, even if he did, he was legally justified in doing so. Appellant contended the trial court erred when it denied his request to give a modified version of the former pattern jury instruction on affirmative defenses in light of the Georgia Supreme Court’s then-recent decision in McClure v. Georgia, 834 SE2d 96 (2019), and when it overruled his objections to the prosecutor’s repeated arguments in closing that Appellant was legally precluded from claiming justification because he never admitted that he shot Devero. Appellant also contended the trial court erred in responding to a jury note showing that the jury was swayed by the prosecutor’s improper arguments and therefore misunderstood the law of justification. Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s request to give a modified version of the former pattern jury instruction on affirmative defenses in light of McClure. As a result of that initial error, the trial court overruled Appellant’s objections to the prosecutor’s repeated misstatements of the law of justification during closing arguments, which the note sent out by the jury during deliberations showed had misled the jury. Moreover, the court’s response to the jury’s note did nothing to correct the jury’s misunderstanding of the law and indeed may have worsened it. Accordingly, the Court could not say that the court’s instructional error was harmless, and it therefore reversed Appellant’s conviction and sentence for felony murder. However, the Court also concluded that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction, so the State could retry him if it so chose. View "Reese v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Carlos Drennon appealed his convictions for malice murder and participation in criminal street gang activity stemming from the 2007 shooting death of Randy Griffin. Drennon contended, among other things: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants; and (3) that he was denied his right to be present at trial when he was not included in certain bench conference discussions. With respect to the right-to-be-present claim, the Georgia Supreme Court "cannot easily reject that claim on the existing record." The Court vacated the trial court's judgment in part and remanded for a hearing on Drennon’s constitutional claim in the first instance. View "Drennon v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This appeal presented only a discrete and important threshold question to the underlying case: whether the Georgia Constitution required a plaintiff to establish some cognizable injury to bring a lawsuit in Georgia courts, i.e., to have standing to sue, separate and apart from the statutory authorization to bring suit. The Georgia Supreme Court found T. Davis Humphries, as a private citizen, had standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief against her local county government for its planned removal of a Confederate monument in alleged violation of OCGA § 50-3-1. But the other plaintiffs — the various Sons of Confederate Veterans entities — did not show that they were members of the communities the governments of which they sought to sue, and they alleged no other cognizable injury sufficient to establish their standing. The Court of Appeals was therefore wrong to affirm the dismissal of Humphries’s complaint for a lack of standing as to her claim for injunctive relief, but it was right to affirm the dismissal of the complaints filed by the various Sons of Confederate Veterans groups. The Supreme Court did not reach the question of whether Humphries had standing for her claim for damages under OCGA § 50-3-1, because the cause of action that statute purported to create had not yet arisen; by the statute’s terms, the cause of action arose only upon the occurrence of conduct prohibited by the statute, and that conduct had not yet occurred. View "Sons of Confederate Veterans, et al. v. Henry Cty. Bd of Commissioners" on Justia Law

Brian Brookins was convicted by jury of the murders of Sandra Suzanne Brookins and Samantha Rae Giles and of related crimes. The jury declined in its guilt/innocence phase verdict to find Brookins “mentally retarded” or “mentally ill.” At the conclusion of the sentencing phase, the jury found multiple statutory aggravating circumstances and sentenced Brookins to death for each of the two murders. Finding no reversible error in the trial court judgment, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Brookins’s convictions and sentences. View "Brookins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Vernon Beamon was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting deaths of Sylvia Watson and Samuel White. Beamon appealed, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that his convictions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony should have merged. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed with both contentions and affirmed. View "Beamon v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Walter Lowe was convicted by jury of felony murder and other offenses in connection with the July 2017 shooting death of his wife, Erica Powell. The jury also found Lowe guilty of family violence aggravated assault and cruelty to children in the third degree, crimes that occurred in 2015. Lowe raised two claims of error, both of which were related to the joinder in one indictment of the 2015 acts of domestic violence against Powell and her 2017 murder: (1) the trial court erred in denying Lowe’s motion to sever; and (2) trial counsel’s deficient argument in support of Lowe’s motion to sever constituted ineffective assistance. The Georgia Supreme Court found that because Lowe’s 2015 criminal acts involving Powell would have been admissible in the trial of Powell’s 2017 murder pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b), Lowe did not show the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to sever. The Court found Lowe's second enumeration of error lacked merit because severance was properly denied based upon the relevant and controlling Georgia law counsel cited in his severance motion and supporting brief. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Lowe’s motion for a new trial. However, the Court vacated Lowe’s felony murder sentences and remand for resentencing on those counts because the trial court erred in sentencing Lowe on two counts of felony murder when there was a single victim. View "Lowe v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Douglas Pritchett appealed his conviction for malice murder in connection with the 2017 death of Richard Danley. On appeal, Pritchett argued the trial court erred in denying his amended motion for new trial because: (1) his conviction was based upon insufficient evidence; (2) the trial court improperly admitted the State’s evidence proffered under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b); and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He also claimed he was entitled to a new trial based on the cumulative and collective prejudice resulting from trial court error and the deficient performance of his trial counsel. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed Pritchett's conviction. View "Pritchett v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rashad Barber appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes arising out of the 2014 shooting death of Darius Bottoms. On appeal, Barber contended: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for murder because the only evidence inculpating him in this crime was presented through the testimony of an alleged accomplice; (2) the trial judge erred by failing to recuse himself after making statements revealing a personal bias; and (3) that the trial court erred when it resentenced him on the charges of participation in criminal street gang activity and possession of a firearm. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Barber v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Curtis Jackson was convicted by jury of malice murder in connection with the 2015 shooting death of Vernard Mays. On appeal, Jackson argued the trial court erred: (1) in failing to instruct the jury that it must find corroboration for an accomplice’s testimony; and (2) in failing to excuse Juror Number 22 for cause. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jackson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Ronregus Watts challenged his 2008 convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the 2006 shooting death of Thomas Vinson. Watts contended: (1) the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police and physical and testimonial evidence obtained as a result of his statement. The Georgia Supreme Court found, when properly viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support Watts' convictions, and the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress. Accordingly, the convictions were affirmed. View "Watts v. Georgia" on Justia Law