Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jerrontae Morris was convicted of malice murder and related crimes in connection with the November 2015 shooting of a vehicle occupied by Anthony Lundy and Demeco Person, which fatally wounded Lundy. On appeal, Appellant contended the evidence was insufficient as a matter of constitutional due process to sustain his conviction for malice murder because the State failed to prove that Appellant proximately caused the victim’s death and did not prove that Appellant either conspired with his co-defendants to commit the crime or was a party to the crime. Appellant also contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of Georgia statutory law to sustain his conviction for malice murder because the trial evidence was circumstantial and the State failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than his guilt. The Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible errors and affirmed the convictions. View "Morris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After a joint trial, Demetre Mason and Frankland Henderson were convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2014 shooting deaths of Sonia Williams and Shaniqua Camacho. On appeal, Mason contended the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions for malice murder, and that the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether evidence that, a month before the murders, Mason stole a handgun that was used in the shootings was admissible under Rule 403. In a separate appeal, Henderson raised six claims: (1) the admission at trial of Mason’s out-of-court statement to police violated Henderson’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment; (2) the trial court should have given an instruction limiting how the jury could consider Mason’s out-of-court statement; (3) the testimony of one witness for the prosecution, who he claimed was an accomplice, was insufficiently corroborated; (4) the trial court should have excluded as hearsay testimony about statements from an associate of Henderson and Mason, because there was insufficient evidence to show that the statements were made in furtherance of a conspiracy so as to fall within a hearsay exception; (5) the trial court abused its discretion in denying Henderson’s motion to sever his case; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting photos of Henderson making gang signs without proper authentication.The Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible errors in either case and affirmed the convictions. View "Henderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Larry Reese was convicted by jury of the 2015 malice murder of Claynesia Ringer, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony based on shooting Ringer, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Reese argued on appeal: (1) the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury on justification, no duty to retreat, and the State’s burden to disprove affirmative defenses; (2) the trial court plainly erred by not giving an accomplice corroboration charge; and (3) Reese received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Seeing no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Reese v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Tomarkus Young was convicted by jury of felony murder and other charges in connection with the 2018 shooting death of Richard Anderson. On appeal, Young argued the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike a potential juror; that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and that cumulative errors require the grant of a new trial. Finding these assertions lacked merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Young v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joshua Moulder was convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the July 2006 shooting death of Anthony Rudolph and was also convicted of influencing a witness in 2014. He appealed, arguing the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions related to the 2006 shooting and that counsel provided ineffective assistance by: not arguing that the State failed to prove the statute of limitation tolling provision alleged for the non-murder crimes committed in 2006; failing to raise a hearsay and Confrontation Clause objection to certain testimony given by the lead detective; failing to correctly advise Moulder about whether his prior convictions could be used to impeach him if he testified; inaccurately describing the reasonable-doubt standard in closing argument; and failing to object to a jury charge about statements made during formal court proceedings. Because the evidence was sufficient to support Moulder’s convictions and he has failed to prove his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Moulder v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Perry Lee Hatcher, Jr., was convicted by jury of felony murder and cruelty to children in the third degree in connection with the shooting death of his wife, Dashea Hatcher, in the presence of their son, M. H. Hatcher contended his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the qualifications of the State’s expert witness and to rebut the expert’s opinion concerning fibers found on the murder weapon. Because Hatcher failed to carry his burden of showing ineffective assistance of counsel, The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. View "Hatcher v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After adjudicating A. H. delinquent, but finding that he was not in need of treatment, rehabilitation, or supervision, the juvenile court in this case entered an order dismissing the delinquency proceedings under OCGA § 15-11-600 (d) and sealing the record under OCGA § 15-11-701. The State appealed the juvenile court’s decision to seal the record, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that neither OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(1) nor OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(6) authorized the State to appeal the juvenile court’s order. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether “the Court of Appeals err[ed] in concluding that the State was not permitted to appeal under OCGA § 5-7-1(a).” The Supreme Court found with respect to subsection (a)(6), the issue was neither fully litigated below nor briefed by the parties in significant depth to the Supreme Court. "Thus, although this issue is properly before us in a narrow sense, it is not presented in a form that would allow us to clarify the law or otherwise provide meaningful guidance." Accordingly, the writ was vacated, and the petition for certiorari in Case No. S22C1035 was denied. View "In the Interest of A.H." on Justia Law

This appeal arises from a fatal collision between a tractor-trailer driven by Lloy White and a car driven by Kristie Miller. The issue it presented for the Georgia Supreme Court's review centered on whether the well-established test governing the admissibility of expert testimony applied with equal force to investigating law enforcement officers. To this, the Court held that when an investigating law enforcement officer provides expert testimony, the officer is subject to the same inquiry as all witnesses who offer expert opinion testimony and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a full, three-prong analysis under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny. View "Miller, et al. v. Golden Peanut Company, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

The Hearing Panel of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) recommended that Gerald Johnson be removed from office for violating Rules 1.1, 1.2 (A), and 1.2 (B) of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct (“CJC”). Johnson, however, submitted his resignation to Governor Kemp shortly after the Hearing Panel filed its Report and Recommendation. Removal from office was the only sanction the JQC seeks, and the Georgia Supreme Court could not remove a former judge from an office he no longer holds. Accordingly, this matter was dismissed. View "Inquiry concerning Judge Gerald Johnson" on Justia Law

Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Christian Coomer was charged with patterns of behavior regarding his use of campaign funds and his dealings with a legal client that allegedly undermined public confidence. The Hearing Panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) found that he indeed committed those acts, that he did so in bad faith, that those acts violated the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, and that the violations warranted his removal. The Georgia Supreme Court found that enough of the Hearing Panel’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence that, notwithstanding alternative ways that the evidence could have been viewed, the Court deferred to the Hearing Panel’s findings regarding Judge Coomer’s actions and the bad faith in which the Hearing Panel found those actions to have been taken. The Court concluded the appropriate sanction was to remove Judge Coomer from the bench. View "Inquiry concerning Judge Christian Coomer" on Justia Law