Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Hymetheus Johnson was convicted by jury of one count of malice murder and one count of theft by taking in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Javontae Passard. Johnson appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of the charges of malice murder and felony murder. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2013, Cory Butler was convicted at a bench trial for malice murder and other crimes relating to a 2009 home invasion and beatings that resulted in the death of Epsie Ewing and injury of her husband, C.F. Ewing. On appeal, Butler argued: appeal: 1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for malice murder; (2) the trial court did not determine whether Butler knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial; (3) Butler received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the trial court committed a sentencing error. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Butler v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Darrall Early was convicted of felony murder and aggravated assault in connection with the 2019 shooting death of Ramonte Harris. In his appeal, Early contended the trial court erred by admitting a jail video recording into evidence, and by failing to merge the aggravated assault count when sentencing him. Finding no merit in these contentions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Early v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Willie Caldwell appealed his conviction for felony murder arising out of the 2008 shooting death of Ricardo McPherson. On appeal, Caldwell claimed the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction because a key witness was an accomplice, and her testimony was not corroborated. Further, Caldwell argued the trial court erred by failing to give a curative instruction after the District Attorney’s prejudicial closing argument . Although the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient under the accomplice-corroboration statute to convict, the Court determined the trial court should have provided a curative instruction for the District Attorney’s erroneous argument, and that the error was harmful. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Caldwell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jordan Harris appealed his convictions for felony murder and other charges stemming from the July 2010 shooting of Walter Phelps during the robbery of Phelps’s store; Phelps died from blood clots over a month after the shooting. Harris argued: (1) the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred by admitting other –acts evidence, unreliable identifications of him, evidence marred by violations of Brady and Georgia’s criminal discovery statute, and inadmissible hearsay. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient, there was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in admitting the other-acts evidence, there was not a showing of a Brady violation (and the claim was waived under the discovery statute), and any error admitting hearsay was harmless. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to decide whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment against public school teacher Sheri Mimbs, on the basis that Mimbs failed to institute her whistleblower action within one year after discovering the alleged acts of retaliation. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded Mimbs’s complaint was timely with respect to one of the acts giving rise to her retaliation claim. Therefore, the Court reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the school district. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Mimbs v. Henry County Schools" on Justia Law

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