Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Orlando Jordan appealed his conviction for malice murder arising out of the 2014 shooting death of Antoniyo Wiggins. On appeal, Jordan claimed the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court improperly admitted certain evidence at trial. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jordan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Bobby Wynn appealed his conviction for malice murder in connection with the 2014 death of Demontae Ware. As grounds for reversal, Wynn: (1) challenged the admission of allegedly improper impeachment evidence; (2) challenged the exclusion of mental-health testimony; (3) argued the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on a lesser-included offense; (4) challenged the admission of allegedly improper legal testimony; (5) challenged an allegedly improper self-defense charge; and (6) argued cumulative error. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wynn v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In this wrongful death case in which the plaintiffs alleged a faulty vehicle component caused the deadly accident, plaintiffs sought to depose the Chief Executive Officer of General Motors, LLC, and General Motors has sought a protective order barring that deposition. General Motors urged the Georgia Supreme Court to adopt the so-called “apex doctrine” as a means of determining whether “good cause” existed for granting the protective order the company sought. The Supreme Court granted General Motors’ petition for a writ of certiorari to consider “what factors should be considered by a trial court in ruling on a motion for a protective order under OCGA 9-11-26 (c) that seeks to prevent the deposition of a high-ranking officer” and “the appropriate burden of proof as to those factors.” The Supreme Court concluded that, to the extent these factors were asserted by a party seeking a protective order, a trial court should consider whether the executive’s high rank, the executive’s lack of unique personal knowledge of relevant facts, and the availability of information from other sources demonstrate good cause for a protective order under OCGA 9-11-26 (c). However, the Court declined to hold that a trial court had to find that good cause was presumptively or conclusively established in each instance that a movant has demonstrated that an executive was “sufficiently high-ranking” and lacked unique personal knowledge of discoverable information not available through other means. Applying that standard here, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not fully consider all of the reasons asserted by General Motors as a basis for the protective order it sought in the motion. Thus, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s order, and remanded this case with direction that the Court of Appeals vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case for reconsideration. View "General Motors, LLC v. Buchanan, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner Jerry Thomas was convicted in 2010 of one count of child molestation. In 2017, Thomas timely filed an initial petition for habeas corpus challenging the conviction. The habeas court denied relief in May 2018. On July 1, 2019, the Georgia Supreme Court dismissed Thomas’s attempt to appeal that denial because both his notice of appeal and application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal were untimely. Meanwhile, on March 8, 2019, during the pendency of Thomas’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal with the Supreme Court, he filed a motion to correct void sentence in the trial court. In May 2019, the trial court granted Thomas relief and entered a new sentence. In August 2020, Thomas filed a second habeas petition challenging, among other things, the sentence imposed in the 2019 re-sentencing on several grounds. On December 22, 2020, the habeas court dismissed Thomas’s second petition as successive, ruling that the claims raised in that petition “could reasonably have been raised” in his initial petition in 2017. In appealing the habeas court’s dismissal, Thomas argued it was improper because his 2017 habeas petition was filed and litigated before his 2019 re-sentencing and before he raised issues related to that re- sentencing in his 2020 habeas petition. The Warden conceded that Thomas could not have raised claims in 2017 and 2018 concerning a re-sentencing that did not happen until 2019, and that the habeas court therefore erred in dismissing Thomas’s 2020 petition on grounds that it was successive. To this, the Supreme Court concurred and reversed the habeas court ruling. View "Thomas v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

Bertrand Hounkpatin was convicted of felony murder for the death of his two -year old stepson, Noel Johnson. On appeal, Hounkpatin argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. He also argued the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) admitting other-acts evidence (“Rule 404 (b)”) that he physically assaulted his stepchildren; and (2) preventing him from presenting Rule 404 (b) evidence that two of his stepchildren, who were State’s witnesses, had been violent towards Noel and each other. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to sustain Hounkpatin’s conviction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other-acts evidence showing that Hounkpatin squeezed Noel and one of his siblings around their ribs; that evidence was relevant to whether Hounkpatin had the intent to commit the predicate felony of cruelty to children in the first degree and otherwise met the requirements of Rule 404 (b). Any error in admitting other evidence that Hounkpatin slapped or hit the children was harmless. View "Hounpatin v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Tremaine Washington was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Robert Purcell. On appeal, Washington argued: (1) the trial court erred by merging, instead of vacating, the counts of felony murder and aggravated assault when sentencing him; (2) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; (3) the trial court violated his constitutional right to a trial by jury by allowing the jury to deliberate without all of the evidence; and (4) the trial court denied his constitutional right to be present during trial by conducting a hearing about sending exhibits to the jury room after he left the courtroom . Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Washington’s convictions. View "Washington v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Andrew Neloms was convicted of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Octavius Brooks. On appeal, Neloms argued: (1) the trial court failed to declare a mistrial sua sponte when an FBI agent testified regarding inadmissible evidence; (2) the trial court failed to conduct a “Faretta” hearing when Appellant declared that he wanted new attorneys; and (3) trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance for failing to object to hearsay. Finding no error after its review, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Neloms v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jemerius Goodman was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 death of Jyleel Solomon and the aggravated assaults of four other people. On appeal, Goodman argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred in admitting statements he made after invoking his right to remain silent. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded after its review that the evidence was sufficient, and Goodman ever unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent. Though the Court rejectd Goodman’s arguments and affirmed, it sua sponte vacated Goodman’s void sentence for obstructing his own prosecution and remanded the case for resentencing on that count. View "Goodman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Tracy Smith appealed his conviction for felony murder in connection with the 2011 death of Jerome Walden. On appeal, Smith argued the trial court erred in overruling his special demurrer to the felony murder charge, and that the court erred in failing to grant a new trial on his claims of constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel, based on counsel’s failure to (1) object to the verdict form and the trial court’s jury instruction on felony murder, which Smith contends allowed the jurors to render a potentially non-unanimous verdict; (2) file a general demurrer as to the felony murder count; and (3) file a plea in bar on the ground that Smith was not re -tried within the time period required by his statutory speedy trial demand. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Smith’s conviction. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Andreas Perkins was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2014 shooting death of Randy Menefee. On appeal, Perkins argued: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for burglary and two counts of aggravated assault; (2) the trial court erred by denying Perkins’s motion for mistrial after a witness improperly made a reference to gangs ; (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted five photos that allegedly implied that Perkins was involved in gang activity ; and (4) Perkins’s trial lawyer was constitutionally ineffective when he failed to request certain jury instructions. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Perkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law