Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia certified questions of law to the Georgia Supreme Court, all involving OCGA § 40-8-76.1 (d), the “seatbelt statute.” The federal court asked whether the statute precluded a defendant in an action alleging defective restraint system design and/or negligent restraint system manufacture from producing evidence related to: (1) The existence of seatbelts in a vehicle as part of the vehicle’s passenger restraint system; or (2) Evidence related to the seatbelt’s design and compliance with applicable federal safety standards; or (3) An occupant’s nonuse of a seatbelt as part of their defense. The Supreme Court concluded OCGA § 40-8-76.1 (d) did not preclude a defendant in an action alleging defective restraint-system design or negligent restraint-system manufacture from producing evidence related to the existence of seatbelts in a vehicle as part of the vehicle’s passenger restraint system. Furthermore, the Court concluded the statute did not preclude such defendants from producing evidence related to the seatbelt’s design and compliance with applicable federal safety standards. Finally, the Court concluded OCGA § 40 -8-76.1 (d) precluded consideration of the failure of an occupant of a motor vehicle to wear a seatbelt for the purposes set forth in subsection (d), even as part of a defendant-manufacturer’s defense. View "Domingue, et al. v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the criminal trial of Shalita Jackson Harris, a school bus driver who was convicted of homicide by vehicle in the first degree after the bus she drove crashed, resulting in the death of a student. Following her conviction, Harris moved for new trial alleging that jurors had engaged in misconduct during deliberations by researching the available sentences for her charges. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Georgia Supreme Court found that both the Court of Appeals and trial court applied the wrong legal standards in deciding whether Harris’ claim of juror misconduct was not sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Accordingly, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jerome Mobley was convicted by jury of breaking into his estranged wife’s home, in violation of a condition of pretrial bond, and shooting and killing her in the presence of the couple’s children. Mobley contended the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter was warranted by at least slight evidence of sudden provocation. Because a voluntary manslaughter instruction was not warranted by the evidence, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mobley v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Ladarrwin Copeland was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting deaths of Timothy Rodgers and Ricky Johnson. On appeal, Copeland argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try his case , that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence related to the search of his cell phone records. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court. View "Copeland v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joe Rayton was convicted by jury of murder for the shooting death of Antonio Ladson. On appeal, Rayton contended the trial court erred by refusing his request for a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Additionally, Rayton argued he was denied effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel’s objection to a jury instruction requested by the State regarding accomplice corroboration and by counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s statement during closing argument that Rayton’s own testimony admitting that he shot Ladson during an attempted drug deal precluded a self -defense verdict. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court. View "Rayton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Andre Byrd was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of David McReynolds. On appeal, Byrd contended only that the trial court erred by granting the State’s challenge to his peremptory strikes of three prospective jurors and by reseating those jurors. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court. View "Byrd v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Hector Garay was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the January 1996 shooting death of Adalberto Salinas. In his only enumeration of error on appeal, he contended there was insufficient evidence to prove him guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed Garay’s convictions. View "Garay v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Justin Harris left his 22-month-old son Cooper strapped in his rear-facing car seat on a June 2014. Harris walked into work; the child died of hyperthermia after hours in the hot car. The State’s theory was that Appellant intentionally and maliciously abandoned his child to die a slow and painful death trapped in the summer heat, so that Appellant could achieve his dream of being free to further his sexual relationships with women he met online. The defense theory was that Appellant was a loving father who had never mistreated Cooper and simply but tragically forgot that he had not dropped off the child on that particular morning. During Appellant’s trial, substantial evidence was presented to support both theories. At issue is some of the State’s evidence which was admitted at trial that “did little if anything to answer the key question of Appellant’s intent when he walked away from Cooper, but was likely to lead the jurors to conclude that Appellant was the kind of man who would engage in other morally repulsive conduct. The Georgia Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support his convictions for the crimes against Cooper, and some of the evidence was properly admitted as intrinsic evidence to establish the State’s motive theory, the trial court should have excluded much of it because it was needlessly cumulative and prejudicial. Appellant’s convictions on counts charging crimes against Cooper were reversed. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants Xzavaien Jones and Terrell McFarland were tried jointly and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Anthony Meredith. Both men appealed, raising numerous alleged trial court errors, including the removal of a dissenting juror during deliberations. Although the record may well have supported findings authorizing the trial court to remove the juror, the Georgia Supreme Court determined the findings that the trial court actually made (and to which the Court’s review was limited) were not sufficient to justify removal. Because the trial court abused its discretion in removing the juror, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Prior to this appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice Vanessa and Brock Joyner’s wrongful death action against defendants Dr. Lynn Leaphart and MPPG, Inc. (“MPPG”), in accordance with the “two-dismissal rule” of OCGA § 9-11-41 (a) (3)1 following the Joyners’ voluntary dismissal of two later-filed actions. In Division 2 of its opinion, the Court of Appeals held that, even though the Joyners’ second and third actions were filed against defendants who were not sued in the original, pending action, the two-dismissal rule nevertheless applied, and the second voluntary dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits requiring the dismissal of the action against Leaphart and MPPG. To the Georgia Supreme Court, the Joyners argued the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the two dismissal rule applied to the second voluntary dismissal. To this, the Supreme Court agreed the appellate court did err, vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Joyner, et al. v. Leapheart, et al." on Justia Law