Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1994, the Georgia Supreme Court approved State Bar of Georgia Formal Advisory Opinion (“FAO”) 94 -3, which addressed and provided guidance concerning former Standard of Conduct 47 in on whether a lawyer could properly contact and interview former employees of an organization represented by counsel to obtain information relevant to litigation against the organization. In 2000, the Supreme Court issued an order adopting the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d), which replaced the Standards of Conduct. The State Bar’s Formal Advisory Opinion Board (“Board”) determined that the substance and conclusion reached in FAO 94 -3 remained the same under the applicable GRPC. The Georgia Defense Lawyers Association (“GDLA”) raised concerns over FAO 20-1, contending that former employees fall within the “three types of agents or employees of a represented organization who may not be contacted on an ex parte basis by an opposing lawyer[.]” The Supreme Court retracted Formal Advisory Opinion 94-3 and approved Formal Advisory Opinion 20-1, with modifications. View "In re: Formal Advisory Opinion No. 20-1" on Justia Law

Francisco Palencia was convicted of several offenses arising from a home invasion and sexual assault of V. M. Palencia appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. Palencia thereafter filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the trial court did not plainly err by failing to charge the jury on the requirement under OCGA 24-14-8 that accomplice testimony be corroborated. After review, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals incorrectly distinguished the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in reaching its decision. Accordingly, the Court granted Palencia’s petition for certiorari, reversed in part the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remanded this case to the appellate court for further proceedings. View "Palencia v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to decide whether E. Howard Carson acquired a vested right to develop property in a particular manner based upon alleged assurances made to him by Tom Brown, the Forsyth County Planning Director. Carson was the principal for Red Bull Holdings II, LLC, the property owner in this case. In 2016, Carson met with Brown and discussed Carson’s plans to purchase approximately 17 acres of land and develop that property into 42 separate 9,000- square-foot residential lots. In his role as Planning Director, Brown was allowed to interpret the zoning code; however, he could not unilaterally promise or authorize the issuance of a building permit. The record further showed that Carson knew prior to that meeting that the zoning code allowed for 9,000-square-foot lots. During the meeting, Carson showed Brown a hand-drawn document depicting Carson’s proposed subdivision layout, and asked Brown to confirm whether the current zoning code allowed for his proposed development. Brown made no representations as to future zoning code changes that might impact the property, nor did he guarantee that Carson would be able to build as he proposed. Carson purchased the property and spent money obtaining the various plans and appraisals necessary to begin development. Then, in August 2016, the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners “imposed a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for land disturbance permits” for 9,000 -square-foot residential lots. Based on the record before the Supreme Court, it concluded Carson did not acquire a vested right; therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals holding to the contrary was reversed. The case was remanded with direction. View "Brown, et al. v. Carson, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant David Renfro challenges his 2019 convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Rita Hennon. Appealing his conviction and sentence, Renfro argued the trial court erred in admitting his pre-arrest statements to police because he was allegedly under custodial interrogation and had not yet received Miranda warnings. Finding that any error in admitting Renfro’s statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Renfro v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted Gregory Davenport’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Davenport asked whether the habeas court erred in finding that a count of aggravated assault predicated on the use of a deadly weapon did not merge with his conviction for armed robbery. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the habeas court indeed erred with respect to that question, and reversed judgment in part. View "Davenport v. Ward" on Justia Law

Appellant Kaovion Dickey challenged his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2018 shooting death of Tony McGowan and the shooting of Mikeem Jackson. Appellant’s sole enumeration of error was that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Appellant was guilty, so judgment was affirmed. View "Dickey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the Georgia Supreme Court’s grant of his application for discretionary appeal, Donnel Rawls appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion seeking a copy of his trial transcripts at public expense. Based on the Supreme Court’s review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the representations of counsel at oral argument, Rawls obtained the relief he sought. Rawls’s appeal therefore became moot and was therefore dismissed. View "Rawls v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jared Smith was convicted of malice murder and theft by taking in connection with the 2018 stabbing death of Ronald Roach. Smith’s sole contention on appeal was that the trial court erred in allowing the medical examiner to provide expert opinion testimony about blood-spatter evidence depicted in photographs of the crime scene. Seeing no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Robert Price, III was convicted of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Ronnie Cantrell, Sr., and the non- fatal shooting of Ronnie Cantrell, Jr. Price’s sole contention on appeal was that the trial court erred by failing to merge his convictions for aggravated assault and aggravated battery committed against Cantrell Junior because the underlying acts occurred in quick succession and arose out of the same transaction. Although the Georgia Supreme Court found some evidence to support Price’s argument, there was also evidence to support the trial court’s factual finding that the acts were separated by sufficient time to constitute a deliberate interval. “The existence of a deliberate interval dooms Price’s argument.” Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Price v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Kevon Watkins was convicted in a bench trial for felony murder in connection with the death of his sister, Alexus. On appeal, Watkins argued the trial court erred in declining to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of felony murder. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Watkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law