Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Stephen Alexander was convicted by jury of sexual offenses against his stepdaughters, both of whom were minors during Alexander’s trial. At trial, the two victims and a child advocate testified in a courtroom that was partially closed to spectators at the direction of the trial court. Alexander sought to challenge the closure of the courtroom solely through a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). The improper closure of a courtroom was considered a “structural” error that results in reversal of a defendant’s conviction on direct appeal if the error was committed over objection. Alexander’s trial counsel did not object. The trial court and the Court of Appeals determined that the proper Strickland analysis required a defendant in this posture to demonstrate actual prejudice to prevail, and rejected Alexander’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to show any such prejudice. To this, the Georgia Supreme Court concurred and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. View "Alexander v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Allen Williams appealed his conviction for felony murder in connection with the death of his girlfriend, Betty Ranow. Williams argued on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning his alleged beating of another person, and in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his statements to the police in connection with that incident were freely and voluntarily given before they were introduced at trial. Because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that any error in the admission of this evidence was harmless, judgment was affirmed. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Timone Hooper was convicted by jury of murder, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime arising out of a shooting that killed Lawrence Bryan and wounded Keron Brown. On appeal, Hooper contended he received ineffective assistance based on his counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on the requirement that confessions be corroborated, and he contended the trial court plainly erred in failing to give that instruction sua sponte. Hooper also argued the trial court violated his constitutional right to a public trial by excluding spectators from the courtroom in order to question a juror about her acquaintance with a potential witness. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Hooper's convictions. View "Hooper v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In February 2019, Haleem Graham was tried jointly with Brantley Washington and Chrishon Siders and found guilty of felony murder, home invasion in the first degree, and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Seine Yale Jackson. On appeal, Graham argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to testimony from a detective that, based on his investigation, he believed that Graham and his co-defendants committed the crimes. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Graham v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Kevonta Daniels was convicted by jury of felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Kenneth Moore; the aggravated assaults of Jai Williams, Jamal Williams, and James Williams; the theft of vehicles belonging to Jamal Williams, Marcus Jones, and Alvin Walker; and other offenses. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Daniels argued on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting statements he made to the police into evidence at trial. Daniels, who was 14 years old at the time of the crimes and when he was interviewed by the police, specifically argued the State failed to prove that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights before speaking with the police and that his statements should also have been excluded because the police failed to comply with provisions of the Juvenile Code relating to custody of juvenile arrestees. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Daniels v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia certified three questions of law to the Georgia Supreme Court. The questions sought interpretation of OCGA 40-6-248.1(b). The Supreme Court's responses to the questions certified were: (1) OCGA § 40-6-248.1(b) imposed a duty on a person assisting the operator of a vehicle with loading merchandise onto the vehicle to securely fasten the load; (2) a person assisting in loading a vehicle may be liable in tort for injuries to a third party resulting from a breach of his or her duty to secure that load (and any covering thereon); and (3) when serving as the basis for a civil tort suit, a violation of OCGA 40-6-248.1(b)(1) was subject to ordinary tort principles and defenses. View "McIntyre v. Sam's East, Inc." on Justia Law

On March 25, 2021, Georgia Governor Kemp signed into law Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), which created from the former Augusta Judicial Circuit two new judicial circuits: the Columbia Judicial Circuit, and the Augusta Judicial Circuit. The judicial circuit split, which was slated to become effective on July 1, 2021, was briefly stayed by three lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of SB 9. The lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Richmond County, one by Columbia County citizen Willie Saunders and two by the nonprofit, voting advocacy organization, Black Voters Matter Fund, Inc. (“BVMF”). At the heart of each of these suits was a claim that Columbia County officials sought to form their own judicial circuit as a racially discriminatory reaction to the election of District Attorney Jared Williams in November 2020. These appeals and cross-appeals arose from the trial court’s July 13, 2021 final judgment addressing the merits of the appellants’ challenges to SB 9 in each of the three suits. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court rejected the appellants’ challenges to SB 9, declaring it “valid and enforceable” and allowing the circuit split to proceed. However, The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s judgment as to BVMF and remanded those cases to the trial court with instruction that they be dismissed because BVMF lacked standing to pursue its actions. As to Saunders, the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of his appeal because Saunders failed to challenge the trial court’s dispositive ruling dismissing the defendants he sued. Thus, the Supreme Court also vacated the judgment as to Saunders’ complaint and directed the trial court to dismiss his action upon remand. View "Black Voters Matter Fund, Inc. v. Kemp" on Justia Law

In September 2018, a grand jury returned an indictment charging James Burns, a police officer with the Atlanta Police Department, with crimes connected to a June 2016 on-duty shooting. Burns filed a “Plea in Abatement/Motion to Quash Indictment” arguing that the State failed to provide him his substantive rights under former OCGA sections 17-7-52 and 45-11-4. The trial court denied the motion. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Burns’s application for an interlocutory appeal to review whether the 2016 amendments to OCGA sections 17-7-52 and 45-11-4 applied when an indictment was sought after the effective date of the amendments with respect to crimes allegedly committed prior to the effective date. While the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning in denying Burns’s motion, it agreed that the 2016 amendments at issue applied to Burns’s prosecution, so the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Burns v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether a plaintiff could receive a full recovery under OCGA 13-6-11 and OCGA 9-11-68(b)(2). Because the Court concluded the provisions provided for different recoveries despite using somewhat similar measures for calculating the respective amount of damages or sanction, a prevailing plaintiff could recover under each statutory provision without regard to any recovery under the other. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded this case with direction that the case be remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees and litigation expenses pursuant to OCGA 9-11-68(b)(2). View "Junior v. Graham" on Justia Law

In Case No. S21A0899, Lynnette Riley, the former State Revenue Commissioner, appealed the partial grant of summary judgment in favor of petitioner Georgia Association of Club Executives (“GACE”), contending that the trial court erred by permanently enjoining the enforcement of OCGA 15-21-201(1)(B) – one of the definitions of “adult entertainment establishment” – based on the court’s ruling that the provision was unconstitutionally vague. In Case No. S21X0900, GACE cross-appealed, contending the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in Riley’s favor on the remaining claims of GACE’s petition, arguing that OCGA 15-21-209, by imposing an annual assessment on adult entertainment establishments, violated constitutional due process and free speech protections. Although these appeals presented challenges to the constitutionality of state statutes, the Georgia Supreme Court did not address the merits of the appellant’s or the cross-appellant’s claims of error. Instead, the Court vacated the trial court’s summary judgment order and subsequent final judgment because the Court determined GACE’s action against Riley was moot when the trial court ruled. "Because Riley was no longer Revenue Commissioner at the time the trial court entered its summary judgment order and subsequent final judgment, an injunction against her in her individual capacity could not give GACE the relief it seeks. ... A court may not address the constitutionality of the tax at issue absent the presence of a proper defendant in the action." View "Riley v. Georgia Assn. of Club Executives., Inc." on Justia Law