Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

A majority of the Hearing Panel (“Panel”) of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) recommended that Judge Eric Norris issue a public apology for violating Rules 1.2 (A) and 2.8 (B) of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, with the dissent recommending censure from the Court along with a public apology. The charges stemmed from an Athens Banner-Herald article published on a criminal defendant who had a bench warrant issued for failing to appear in court. Judge Norris presided over the defendant’s first trial, which ended in a mistrial; defendant was released on his own recognizance. A bail bondsman posted his disagreement with the judge’s handling of the case on social media. The judge arranged for a meeting with the bail bondsman wherein he had a deputy confiscate the bondsman’s cell phone, and scolded the bondsman in the judge’s chambers. The bondsman did not feel he was free to leave, and requested to have his lawyer present. The bondsman filed a complaint against Judge Norris with the JQC. The Director excepted to the recommended sanction, asserting that a public reprimand was appropriate. For the reasons stated below, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed that a public apology or a censure was an appropriate sanction and order that Judge Norris be publicly reprimanded. View "Inquiry concerning Judge Eric Norris" on Justia Law

Erin McAlister appealed trial court orders awarding Wendi Clifton, McAlister’s former domestic partner, visitation rights to McAlister’s adopted daughter, Catherine, pursuant to Georgia's equitable caregiver statute. McAlister contended the trial court erred in declaring the statute “constitutional, both facially and as applied to [Clifton],” as well as finding that Clifton had standing to seek visitation rights as Catherine’s equitable caregiver. McAlister also contended the trial court erred in denying her counterclaim for breach of a settlement agreement that the parties signed when they separated. Because Catherine turned 18 years old prior to the docketing of this appeal, McAlister's challenge to the award of visitation rights was moot. Those portions of the trial court's orders addressing the constitutionality of the equitable caregiver statute and the award of visitation, were vacated, and the trial court directed to dismiss Clifton's claim for visitation. However, because the record supported the trial court’s finding that McAlister failed to carry her burden of proving any damages from Clifton’s alleged breach of the settlement agreement, the court did not err in denying McAlister’s counterclaim. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed that portion of the court’s judgment. View "McAlister v. Clifton" on Justia Law

Quantavious Harris appealed his convictions for felony murder and other charges stemming from the 2009 shooting death of Stephen Anim. The trial court previously granted Harris’ motion for new trial on the ground that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance in failing to move to suppress certain text messages, but the Georgia Supreme Court reversed. Following remand for consideration of other issues raised in Harris’s motion for new trial, Harris raised additional, new grounds for his motion. The trial court addressed all of the issues presented and denied the motion. Harris appealed, raising a host of alleged errors by the court at trial. The Supreme Court determined none of these claims were properly within the scope of what the trial court was authorized to consider on remand, and thus the trial court should not have considered them. Accordingly, the ineffective assistance of counsel claims were waived. Additionally, Harris’s newly discovered evidence claim was not properly raised before the trial court and thus left the Supreme Court with nothing to review. But Harris’s claims of error by the trial court at trial were not required to have been raised in the motion for new trial in order for the Supreme Court to consider. Addressing those claims, the Court concluded: (1) the claim about the State’s closing argument was not preserved due to Harris’s failure to object at trial; (2) the trial court did not plainly err in instructing jurors about the use of their notes; (3) any abuse of discretion in admitting the text messages was harmless; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the similar-transaction evidence. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Marquayvian Gude was convicted by jury of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Devontavious McClain. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Gude appealed, contending the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting an “in-life” photograph of McClain during the testimony of McClain’s mother and denying his motion for mistrial regarding the same, permitting the State to elicit hearsay testimony from McClain’s sister, and overruling his objection to an officer’s testimony and giving an insufficient curative instruction. Gude also argued the trial court erred when it ruled he had not timely moved for immunity from prosecution under OCGA 16-3-24.2 or established his justification defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gude v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Andre Jackson was convicted by jury of the 2010 armed robbery of Joseph Williams. A different jury found Jackson guilty of felony murder predicated on the armed robbery of L. V. Wilson and of the murder of Jquanda Johnson by stabbing her with a knife. On appeal, Jackson contended that, in the Williams robbery trial, the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine to exclude an out-of-court statement made by Johnson in the days between the robbery and her death. In addition, Jackson contended that in the murder trial, the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever the offenses charged for the Wilson murder from the offenses charged for the Johnson murder. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jackson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Georgia Supreme Court's review centered on whether a child charged with delinquency based on an alleged violation of Georgia’s Criminal Code could assert an affirmative defense of insanity or delusional compulsion, under OCGA §sections 16-3-2 or 16-3-3, in a juvenile-court proceeding. The Georgia Supreme Court found that the Juvenile Code did not expressly state whether affirmative defenses provided for in the Criminal Code were available in juvenile court. Based on the Juvenile Code’s text and structure, however, the Court concluded that insanity and delusional-compulsion defenses were available in most delinquency proceedings, specifically holding that in a delinquency proceeding, a child could assert an insanity or delusional-compulsion defense under OCGA sections 16-3-2 or 16-3-3 when the child’s delinquency charge is based on an allegation that the child committed “[a]n act . . . designated a crime by the laws of this state.” Because the juvenile court erred in concluding that a child could never raise an insanity or delusional-compulsion defense in a delinquency proceeding, the Supreme Court vacated the court’s order denying the motion of T.B. which sought a forensic psychological evaluation for purposes of raising a defense under OCGA 16-3-2 or 16-3-3. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Interest of T.B." on Justia Law