Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Demetruis Fortson was convicted by jury of felony murder predicated on armed robbery, hijacking a motor vehicle, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, among other offenses, related to the shooting death of Nicholas Hagood. On appeal, Fortson contended the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a new trial in its capacity as the “thirteenth juror” and for a directed verdict. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Fortson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Demartre Harris was convicted by jury of felony murder and other crimes for his involvement in two drive-by shootings that injured Laundon Alexander and Patrick Boyd and resulted in the death of Marcus Bowden. Harris argued on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence pertaining to the weapons and ammunition that law enforcement officials found at the time of Harris’s arrest; (3) the trial court erred by admitting evidence pertaining to Harris’s Facebook posts; and (4) that Harris received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer failed to call Dashauna Wilborn as a witness. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Harris v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Sovensky Maddox was convicted by jury of the malice murder of Lafayette Smith. Maddox’s jury trial was conducted simultaneously with the bench trial of his co-defendant, Jason Evans. Evans was acquitted. Maddox appealed, contending that the trial court erred by simultaneously holding a bench trial for his co-defendant while holding a jury trial for him and by denying his motion to sever the trials. The Georgia Supreme Court determined that Maddox waived any claim of error in regard to the simultaneous jury and bench trials, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Maddox’s motion to sever. View "Maddox v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jefferies Anderson was convicted by jury of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Jonathan Newton. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Anderson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting intrinsic evidence and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Anderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This case involved Google LLC’s application of internet search algorithms, which it used to auction off search terms for profit to advertisers, and the interests of Edible IP, LLC, which sought to exercise control over the profit generated from its trade name and associated goodwill. In 2018, Edible IP brought an action against Google arising from Google’s monetization of the name “Edible Arrangements” without permission in its keyword advertising program. Google moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint on several grounds, including that it failed to state a claim, and alternatively compelling the parties to arbitration. Edible IP appealed that order, and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the trial court properly granted Google’s motion to dismiss, and after review, affirmed, finding Edible IP did not state a cognizable claim for relief. View "Edible IP, LLC v. Google, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant James Shelton was convicted of malice murder in connection with the death of Manuel “Manny” Palmer. Appellant contended on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict; and (2) trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to obtain a psychologist’s evaluation regarding his criminal responsibility. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Shelton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Alejandro Martinez-Arias was convicted by jury of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, and child molestation. In his appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals, Martinez-Arias contended, among other things, that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to present opinion testimony about certain purported aspects of Mexican or Latino culture from a school counselor who had worked with M.J., the child victim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the disputed testimony. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and asked the following question: “Did the trial court commit reversible error when it admitted opinion testimony about cultural characteristics of an ethnic group?” The Court answered, "yes," the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted this testimony, but the Court nonetheless affirmed because the error was harmless based on the record in this case. View "Martinez-Arias v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dorothy Wright and her grandchildren (collectively, the “Decedents”) were killed when their vehicle was struck by a stolen vehicle that was being chased by College Park Police Department officers. At the time of the accident, the City of College Park had an insurance policy provided by Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (“Atlantic”), which provided coverage for negligent acts involving the City’s motor vehicles up to $5,000,000 but also included immunity endorsements which said that Atlantic had no duty to pay damages “unless the defenses of sovereign and governmental immunity are inapplicable.” Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, raising claims of negligence and recklessness resulting in the wrongful deaths of the three Decedents, to which the City raised sovereign immunity as a defense. Plaintiffs claimed the insurance policy limit was $5,000,000 for the three deaths, while Atlantic contended the policy limit was capped at $700,000 under the relevant statutory scheme and the terms of the City’s policy. As the parties agreed, pursuant to OCGA 36-92-2 (a)(3), the sovereign immunity of local government entities was automatically waived up to $700,000 in this instance, regardless of whether the City had a liability insurance policy. Atlantic intervened in the case to litigate the limit of the insurance policy. The trial court ruled that the policy limit is $5,000,000, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Georgia Supreme Court then granted Atlantic’s petition for certiorari to decide whether the City’s insurance policy waived the City’s sovereign immunity under OCGA 36-92-2 (d)(3). The Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals incorrectly ruled that the City’s insurance policy increased the sovereign immunity waiver notwithstanding the immunity endorsements, which expressly precluded coverage when a sovereign immunity defense applies. Judgment was therefore reversed. View "Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. v. City of College Park, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant Erica Brennan was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the scalding death of her eight-year-old stepdaughter, Sarah Harris. On appeal, Appellant argued: (1) the trial court erred by conducting a pre-trial conference pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”) 33.5 (B) outside her presence in violation of her federal and state constitutional rights; (2) the trial court erred by initiating an ex parte conversation with the lead detective, and by failing to disclose this conversation to counsel; and (3) her second-chair counsel rendered ineffective assistance by being mentally and physically incapable of assisting in Appellant’s trial. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Brennan's conviction. View "Brennan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

An agreement between the Director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) and Cary Hays III, Chief Magistrate of Crawford County, Georgia, was filed with the Georgia Supreme Court. The agreement was to resolve formal charges brought against Judge Hays arising from a physical altercation with a defendant that appeared before him. The agreement called for Judge Hays to serve an unpaid, 30-day suspension to be followed by a public reprimand. Pursuant to JQC Rule 23, the agreement was submitted to the JQC’s Hearing Panel, which voted 2-1 to accept it, and then filed it with the Supreme Court. Because the record and the limited relevant precedent the Court had found supported the proposed discipline, it accept the agreement and ordered that Judge Hays be suspended for 30 days without pay and be publicly reprimanded for his violations of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge Cary Hays, III" on Justia Law