Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two defendants were indicted for murder, multiple violations of Georgia’s Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, and other crimes related to the shooting death of a victim. The State alleged that the defendants were associated with the Bloods gang and committed the murder to further the gang’s interests. During the investigation, law enforcement obtained extensive Instagram records believed to be linked to the defendants, containing messages, photos, and videos that the State argued demonstrated gang affiliation. One defendant moved to exclude certain social media posts from his trial, arguing they were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, duplicative, and otherwise inadmissible, though he did not cite specific legal authority.The Superior Court of Hall County held a hearing on the motion. The State did not specify exactly which portions of the social media records it intended to introduce but highlighted a particular group message as significant evidence of gang association. The trial court ruled orally and in a subsequent written order that only messages or posts authored by the defendant on trial, or those to which he directly responded, would be admissible; all other evidence of gang association from the social media records was excluded. The court’s reasoning focused on “basic fairness,” without citing specific evidentiary rules or legal standards.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case on the State’s appeal. The Court held that the trial court’s order must be vacated because it was unclear what legal standard the lower court applied in excluding the evidence. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not clearly base its ruling on relevance or the balancing test required by OCGA § 24-4-403 (Rule 403), which governs the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or other concerns. The Supreme Court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "THE STATE v. SIMS" on Justia Law

The case concerns the shooting death of Keshia Smith, who was killed on September 2, 2018. Demarko Marquez Moss was identified as the suspect after his father informed police that Moss may have been the shooter. Moss turned himself in the next day. Evidence at trial included testimony from Moss’s brother, who received a call from Moss shortly after the shooting, and text messages between Moss and Smith that suggested a tumultuous relationship. Smith was found dead in her car, with two young children in the back seat. The State also introduced evidence and expert testimony regarding domestic violence, though the expert had no specific knowledge of Moss or Smith.A Fulton County grand jury indicted Moss on multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses. At trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County, the jury acquitted Moss of two counts of cruelty to children but convicted him on the remaining charges. Moss was sentenced to life without parole plus additional consecutive sentences. He filed a motion for new trial, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Moss then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Moss’s convictions. The court held that there was no plain error in failing to instruct the jury on confession corroboration because Moss’s statement to his brother was not a confession. The court found that Moss’s motion for a mistrial was not preserved for appellate review due to lack of a contemporaneous objection. Any error in admitting the domestic violence expert’s testimony was deemed harmless. The court also rejected Moss’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and found no cumulative error. View "MOSS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Owners of developed commercial and residential properties in Athens-Clarke County challenged the county’s stormwater utility charge, arguing that it was an unconstitutional tax rather than a fee. The charge, established by county ordinances in 2004, funds stormwater management services required by federal law, with the amount assessed based on impervious surface area and land-use classification. The ordinance exempts certain properties, such as public roads and sidewalks, and offers credits for on-site stormwater management. The funds collected are used for flood prevention, pollution minimization, and compliance with federal regulations.Previously, the Superior Court of Athens-Clarke County granted summary judgment to the county, finding that the stormwater utility charge was a fee, not a tax, and thus not subject to the Georgia Constitution’s taxation uniformity provision. This decision relied on the Georgia Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Homewood Village, LLC v. Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, which had addressed the same ordinance and held it imposed a fee rather than a tax. The appellants also pursued related claims in federal court, but those were dismissed on abstention grounds.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that its prior decision in Homewood Village, LLC v. Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County controlled, reaffirming that the stormwater utility charge is a fee and not a tax, and therefore the uniformity provision does not apply. The court also rejected the appellants’ arguments that the charge constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Georgia and United States Constitutions, finding no basis for such a claim. Finally, the court found that the trial court had properly applied the summary judgment standard and had not improperly resolved factual disputes. The judgment in favor of the county was affirmed. View "HOMEWOOD ASSOCIATES INC. v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in 2003 of felony murder and aggravated battery following the death of his two-month-old son, based on a diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). At trial, the prosecution relied on the then-prevailing medical consensus that a specific triad of symptoms in infants was diagnostic of SBS and indicative of abuse. Years later, the defendant sought a new trial, arguing that significant developments in medical science had undermined the reliability of the SBS diagnosis, and presented new expert testimony suggesting alternative, non-abusive causes for his son’s injuries and death.After the original conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, the defendant filed an extraordinary motion for new trial in the Superior Court of the county of conviction, citing newly discovered evidence in the form of updated expert analysis and medical literature. The trial court initially denied the motion without a hearing, but the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated that decision and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. On remand, after hearing extensive expert testimony from both sides, the trial court again denied the motion, finding that the evidence was not newly discovered, that the defendant had not exercised due diligence, and that the evidence was not material.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the trial court’s decision and held that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal framework in evaluating the extraordinary motion for new trial. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in its analysis of whether the evidence was newly discovered, whether the defendant exercised due diligence, and whether the new evidence was material. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration under the proper legal standards. View "SMITH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Christopher Profet was charged with malice murder, armed robbery, and related offenses following the shooting death of Latonya Morris-Figg in Fulton County, Georgia. On May 15, 2014, Profet was seen with Morris-Figg as she cashed money orders intended for the purchase of a car. Surveillance footage placed them together at two stores, and Morris-Figg’s body was later found in a rural area, missing her purse, phone, and cash. Evidence at trial included witness testimony about Profet’s clothing and possession of a handgun, shoe impression analysis, and DNA evidence linking Profet to Morris-Figg. Profet’s statements to investigators were inconsistent with the timeline established by surveillance footage and witness accounts.After a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Profet was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Profet’s motion for a new trial was denied, and after procedural delays regarding notice of the denial, he timely appealed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Profet’s claims, including sufficiency of the evidence, alleged errors regarding his right to testify, limitations on his defense, admission of expert testimony about shoe impressions, and the jury’s viewing of photographic evidence. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court was not required to secure an on-the-record waiver of Profet’s right to testify, and that no plain error occurred in admitting expert testimony under the applicable evidentiary standard. The Court also found no error in allowing the jury to view photographs during deliberations and rejected Profet’s claim of cumulative error. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "PROFET v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Daniel Cook, an independent contractor, was injured when he fell from an exposed, unguarded ledge while installing cabinetry in a second-story bathroom at a residential construction site owned by SMG Construction Services. Cook had previously observed the absence of a guardrail on the ledge and acknowledged this hazard in his deposition. At the time of the accident, he was moving backward toward the ledge while working. Cook sued SMG, alleging that the company failed to maintain a safe premises, which led to his injuries.The Superior Court granted summary judgment to SMG, finding that Cook had actual knowledge of the hazard and failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety. The court concluded that Cook’s knowledge of the exposed ledge was equal to SMG’s, and therefore, SMG owed him no duty to warn or protect against the risk. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, holding that although Cook knew of the ledge, there was evidence that conditions at the site affected his ability to perceive the exact location and risk posed by the ledge. The appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cook’s knowledge of the hazard was equal to or greater than SMG’s.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that the Court of Appeals had conflated actual and constructive knowledge, erroneously applying standards relevant to constructive knowledge. The Supreme Court held that Cook’s own testimony established his actual knowledge of the specific hazard—the unguarded ledge—that caused his injury. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the remaining elements of SMG’s affirmative defenses in light of Cook’s actual knowledge of the hazard. View "SMG CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC v. COOK" on Justia Law

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she developed uterine fibroids as a result of using chemical hair relaxer products manufactured by two companies over a period spanning from 1995 to 2014. She purchased and used different products from each manufacturer at various times, applying them every six to eight weeks, with a brief pause between 2001 and 2002. She was diagnosed with uterine fibroids in 2018 and filed suit in 2022, claiming that the products contained harmful chemicals that caused her injury.The Superior Court denied the manufacturers’ motions to dismiss her strict products liability claims, which were based on Georgia’s ten-year statute of repose for such actions. The manufacturers argued that the statute of repose began running from the date the plaintiff first purchased any product from each manufacturer, which would bar her claims. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, holding that the statute of repose for all units sold by each manufacturer to the plaintiff began with the earliest sale to her, and thus her claims were time-barred.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine how the statute of repose under OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2) applies when a plaintiff alleges injury from multiple consumable products sold over time. The Court held that the statute of repose applies on a per-unit basis, meaning the ten-year period begins with the sale of each individual unit as new to the end user. Therefore, claims are not barred for units sold within ten years of the lawsuit, even if earlier units were sold outside that period. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision in part and remanded the case, allowing the strict liability claims to proceed for units sold within the statutory period. View "BURROUGHS v. STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC" on Justia Law

Brandon Williams was charged with multiple crimes, including two counts of malice murder, following the deaths of Natalie Nation and her son, Cole Nation. Williams lived with his father and Natalie, while Cole sometimes stayed with them. On the night of the incident, witnesses heard Williams yelling threats at Natalie, including statements like “I’m going to kill all of you.” Later, Williams’s father found Natalie and Cole unconscious in Natalie’s room, with a towel tied around Natalie’s neck. Both victims died from asphyxia, and Cole also suffered blunt-force trauma. Williams was arrested at a nearby gas station, and his DNA was found on the towel used in the crime.After a jury trial in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Williams was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences without parole for the malice murder convictions. The trial court merged the remaining counts with the malice murder counts, though the felony murder counts were vacated by law and the cruelty to children count should not have merged. Williams’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Williams’s claim that the trial court erred by admitting a hearsay statement under the residual hearsay exception. The statement, made by Natalie to a friend, described a prior incident in which Williams had choked her. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement, finding it met the requirements of trustworthiness, materiality, and probative value under OCGA § 24-8-807. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Williams’s convictions. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

Two defendants were convicted by a jury of felony murder and related offenses after a fatal shooting outside a game room. The incident involved a physical altercation between the victim and the defendants, during which the victim was shot multiple times and his cell phone was taken. Eyewitnesses placed the defendants at the scene, described a fight immediately preceding the shooting, and identified one defendant as the shooter. DNA evidence linked one defendant to the victim, and both defendants gave inconsistent statements to investigators. The prosecution also introduced evidence of gang affiliation and suggested a motive related to the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement.The case was tried in the Superior Court of Emanuel County, where the jury found both defendants guilty on most counts. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and denied their motions for new trial, except as to the gang-related charge, which the court found was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court’s rationale for reversing the gang conviction barred retrial on that count, and the State entered a nolle prosequi for it. The defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain testimony, and the denial of their motions for directed verdict and new trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the appeals. It held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, was sufficient for a rational jury to find both defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, including as parties to the crimes. The Court found no error in the admission of prior inconsistent statements or in the trial court’s handling of the gang evidence. The Court also determined that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motions for new trial on the general grounds. The convictions were affirmed, except for the gang-related count, which was not at issue on appeal. View "Bostic v. State" on Justia Law

A group of teenagers and young adults devised a plan to rob and murder a man, Justin McKinney, and his girlfriend, Anna Franklin, as revenge for a drug-related incident involving one of the conspirators’ brothers. On the night of the crime, several of the group entered the victims’ home, where one participant shot and killed McKinney, and another shot and wounded Franklin. The group then fled, disposed of weapons, and made incriminating statements. Franklin survived and identified some of the assailants. Physical evidence, including firearms and shell casings, corroborated the events described by witnesses and participants.After the incident, several co-defendants pleaded guilty, while one was tried separately. The appellant, who was a juvenile at the time, was tried by a jury in the Superior Court of Fannin County and found guilty on all counts, including malice murder, attempted murder, and related offenses. He was sentenced to life in prison plus additional consecutive and concurrent terms. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The appellant argued that his custodial statements should have been suppressed due to his age, learning disability, and other factors; that the trial court erred by modifying a pattern jury instruction to include “age” as a factor not to influence the jury; and that a post-incision autopsy photograph was improperly admitted. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court did not err in admitting the custodial statements, as the totality of the circumstances showed a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights. The Court also found no plain error in the jury instruction and no abuse of discretion in admitting the autopsy photograph. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law