Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jabarri Ash was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes arising from the shooting death of Mario Shaw. On appeal, Ash argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior convictions pursuant to OCGA 24-4-404 (b); that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of certain statements made by Shaw pursuant to OCGA 24-8- 807; that the State improperly destroyed exculpatory evidence; that the trial court plainly erred in its instructions to the jury; and that the cumulative harm of these errors affected the trial’s outcome such that he should receive a new trial. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded there was no reversible error, and affirmed. View "Ash v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Harold George was convicted by jury of two counts of child molestation and related offenses. He appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which affirmed his convictions in an unpublished opinion. In addressing one of George’s four enumerations of error, the Court of Appeals rejected his argument that the search of his home exceeded the scope of the relevant search warrant, agreeing with the trial court that “[t]he police officers were not compelled to overlook relevant evidence simply because it was not specifically listed in the search warrant.” Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals cited Walsh v. Georgia, 512 SE2d 408 (1999), for this proposition. The Georgia Supreme Court determined both the appellate and trial courts did not use the correct legal standard for a constitutional Fourth Amendment challenge to the seizure of evidence beyond the scope of a search warrant. The Court therefore vacated the relevant part of the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand this case for further proceedings. View "George v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This case arose from Rockdale County, Georgia's denial of an application for a permit to build a QuikTrip on property owned by William Corey and U.S. Enterprises, Inc. (the “Owners”), on the ground that the proposed facility was a “truck stop,” which was a prohibited use under the County’s Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”). After the County’s Board of Adjustment affirmed the denial of the permit, the Owners filed a petition to the Rockdale County Superior Court seeking, among other things, certiorari under OCGA 5-4-1 et seq. The superior court sustained the petition for certiorari, rejecting the County’s argument that the Owners’ lawsuit was barred by res judicata and reversing the Board’s decision on the ground that the UDO’s applicable definition of a “truck stop” was unconstitutionally vague and therefore violated due process under the Georgia Constitution. The Georgia Supreme Court granted County’s application for a discretionary appeal, and the Owners then cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s rejection of the County’s res judicata argument, reversed the part of the superior court’s judgment ruling that the “truck stop” definition was unconstitutionally vague, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court's holding made it unnecessary to address the Owners’ cross-appeal, which was accordingly dismissed as moot. View "Rockdale County et al.. v. U. S. Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Steven Jones appealed his convictions for malice murder, aggravated assault, and other offenses arising in connection with the death of Quincey Denton and the assault of Kenneth Studivant. On appeal, Jones argued the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after the admission of allegedly improper character evidence during the State’s case. Finding no merit to these contentions, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Keontay Miller appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes arising out of the shooting death of Tellis Fort. Miller contended the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient as a matter of constitutional due process to support the verdict, and that there were direct and irreconcilable conflicts in the evidence and contradictions between the testimonies of witnesses at trial, which required a new trial. The Georgia Supreme Court found no merit to these contentions, though it did find the trial court committed two merger errors at sentencing. Judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "Miller v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Grady Harper, Jr., was tried by jury and convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2018 shooting death of John Allen. On appeal, Harper contended the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the court reporter to transcribe the entirety of the jury selection proceedings, including voir dire, and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt his justification defense. Seeing no error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Harper v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Alexander DeVanna was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the 2017 shooting death of his wife, Casey DeVanna. DeVanna appealed, contending his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a proper jury instruction on the legal principle that a convicted felon can possess a firearm while acting in self-defense under certain circumstances. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed with this contention and affirmed DeVanna’s convictions. View "DeVanna v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The State challenged the suspension of part of Antwon Stanford’s recidivist burglary sentence. The trial court and the Court of Appeals concluded that the suspension was authorized by OCGA 17-10-7 (a), part of the general recidivist statute, as interpreted by the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Goldberg v. Georgia, 651 SE2d 667 (2007). "But Goldberg decided only the right length of recidivist burglary sentences, not whether they can be suspended for offenders like Stanford. OCGA § 16-7-1 (d), part of the burglary statute, plainly says they cannot, and that statute controls this case." Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Georgia v. Stanford" on Justia Law

Shawncy Barrett was convicted by jury of the 2016 felony murder of Terrence Baker. On appeal, Barrett argued: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient as a matter of due process to support his conviction; (2) the trial court should have granted him a new trial on the general grounds; and (3) that the trial court erred by admitting a recording of his first custodial interview with law enforcement officials. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Barrett's conviction. View "Barrett v. Georgia" on Justia Law

B. Reid Zeh filed a lawsuit alleging that the American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. (“ACLU”) had published a post on its blog containing defamatory statements asserting that Zeh, who was the public defender for misdemeanor cases in Glynn County, Georgia, had charged an indigent criminal defendant a fee for his public defense services. The ACLU moved to strike the defamation lawsuit pursuant to Georgia’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute. Zeh then filed two motions requesting discovery. The trial court denied the motion to strike without ruling on Zeh’s discovery motions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion. The Georgia Supreme Court granted the ACLU's petition for certiorari to address what standard of judicial review applies in this situation and whether, under that standard, the trial court erred by denying the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. After applying the proper standard of review to the existing record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred by denying the ACLU’s motion to strike. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding that ruling. But because the trial court failed to rule on Zeh’s requests for discovery, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with direction that it remand the case to the trial court to rule on the discovery motions and for further proceedings. View "American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Zeh" on Justia Law