Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Wilson v. Georgia
Timothy Wilson, Jr. was convicted by jury of child molestation, statutory rape, and two counts of incest involving his 13-year-old stepdaughter, B. O., and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction. Wilson petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted to consider “[w]hether the trial court erred in concluding that evidence of alleged prior offenses of child molestation was admissible under OCGA 24-4-414.” The Court determined the Court of Appeals' analysis of the trial court's decision to admit Wilson's prior offenses of child molestation was flawed, but concluded the judgment was correct. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Wilson v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Kinslow v. Georgia
Jereno Kinslow's felony conviction for computer trespass was premised on evidence that Kinslow altered his employer’s computer network settings so that e-mail messages meant for Kinslow’s boss would also be copied and forwarded to Kinslow’s personal e-mail account. The Court of Appeals affirmed Kinslow’s conviction, and the Georgia Supreme Court granted Kinslow’s petition for certiorari, posing the question of whether Kinslow’s conduct constituted a violation of OCGA 16-9-93 (b)(2). The Court found that although the statute in general was extremely broad, the portion of (b)(2) on which the State exclusively relied did not reach Kinslow’s conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented at Kinslow’s trial was insufficient to support his conviction under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), and thus reversed. View "Kinslow v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Star Residential, LLC et al. v. Hernandez
Manuel Hernandez was shot and seriously injured by unknown assailants as he approached the doorway to his apartment. Hernandez filed suit against the owner of the apartment complex, Terraces at Brookhaven, and the operator of the complex, Star Residential, LLC (collectively “Star Residential”), asserting, among other things, a nuisance claim under the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act (the “Gang Act”). Hernandez claimed that he was entitled to treble damages (i.e., three times the actual damages he sustained in the shooting) and punitive damages under OCGA 16-15-7(c) because his injuries occurred as a result of a criminal street gang creating a public nuisance on Star Residential’s property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Star Residential's motion to dismiss, holding, in relevant part, that whether to hold a property owner liable under OCGA 16-15-7(c) of the Gang Act for maintaining a public nuisance was always a question for the factfinder to decide, and not for the court. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Star Residential’s petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals properly construed the civil liability provision of OCGA 16-15-7(c). After review, the Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the statute was incorrect: "there is nothing in the language of subsection (c) to indicate that the General Assembly intended for a jury to usurp the judiciary’s role of determining the meaning of the statute at issue. ... This means only that, once a legally appropriate cause of action is submitted to the factfinder for decision, that factfinder must be instructed on the legislative intent codified in OCGA 16-15-2 in order to determine if the circumstances of the case warrant the imposition of liability under OCGA 16-15-7(c). The statute simply does not say that a factfinder must determine the meaning of subsection (c) in the first instance, which is a role reserved for the courts." View "Star Residential, LLC et al. v. Hernandez" on Justia Law
Gatto et al. v. City of Statesboro et al.
Michael and Katherine Gatto filed suit against the City of Statesboro and City Clerk Sue Starling, alleging negligence and maintenance of a nuisance, after their son, Michael, died following an altercation at a bar in the University Plaza area of the City. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants, based in part on sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed as to the City, solely on the ground of sovereign immunity. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to address municipal immunity in the context of a nuisance claim. The Court held that the Citywasis immune from liability for the conduct alleged here, because municipalities never faced liability for a nuisance claim based on alleged conduct related to property they neither owned nor controlled, and "nothing in our Constitution alters that principle." Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Gatto et al. v. City of Statesboro et al." on Justia Law
Seals v. Georgia
This case presented the question of whether defendants in criminal cases could have their cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because verdicts were rendered or sentences imposed on less than all counts of an indictment or accusation, or one or more counts were “dead- docketed.” The Georgia Supreme Court concluded it did: dead-docketing, while a common and longstanding practice in Georgia courts, had almost no statutory authority and none that would allow different treatment here. "And precedent from our Court of Appeals has for decades made clear that when a count is dead-docketed, the case remains pending in the trial court." Such a case cannot be appealed as a final judgment under OCGA 5-6-34 (a) (1); instead, it required a certificate of immediate review, which Demarquis Seals did not seek. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal. View "Seals v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Tyler v. Georgia
Charles Tyler was convicted by jury of felony murder, armed robbery, and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of David Fulkrod and theft of copper from a recycling facility. On appeal, Tyler challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to all of his convictions. Because the evidence was sufficient to support each conviction, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Tyler v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Young v. Georgia
Rodney Renia Young was convicted by jury for the murder of Gary Jones and related crimes. The jury declined in its guilt/innocence phase verdict to find him “mentally retarded.” At the conclusion of the sentencing phase, the jury found multiple statutory aggravating circumstances and sentenced Young to death for the murder. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Young’s convictions. View "Young v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Thomas v. Georgia
Tony Thomas was convicted by jury of felony murder in the shooting death of Dominique Boyer; malice murder in the shooting deaths of Veondus Dennis and Antwan Wheeler; aggravated assault against Fredrick Foster, Raheem Zeigler, Kevyn Courtney, and Tiojah Johnson; and criminal gang activity. On appeal, Thomas contended the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on impeachment by a prior felony conviction, and in denying his motion for a new trial based on the State’s failure to disclose evidence that two witnesses had felony convictions. Thomas also contended he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thomas v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Walker v. Georgia
Appellant O’Shaye Walker was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, attempt to purchase marijuana, and a firearm offense in connection with the shooting death of Taquahn Jackson. He argued on appeal the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on misdemeanor possession of marijuana as a lesser-included offense and by giving an overbroad instruction on the attempt to purchase marijuana charge. He also contended his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of certain statements made by Appellant and a detective during Appellant’s recorded interview. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Walker v. Georgia" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Love et al. v. Fulton Cty. Bd. of Tax Assessors et al.
This case arose from a taxpayer grievance concerning whether the Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors (the “Board”) had been diligent in determining that the Atlanta Falcons Stadium Company LLC (“StadCo”) had a usufruct interest in the Mercedez-Benz Stadium that was not subject to ad valorem taxation. In 2017, Albert Love and other Fulton County taxpayers (collectively, Appellants) sued the Board, the individual members of the Board, and the Board’s Chief Appraiser, seeking mandamus and other relief. Since then, the suit was dismissed, appealed to the Court of Appeals, remanded, amended to add claims and intervenors, then dismissed again. At issue in this appeal was whether the trial court properly dismissed Appellants’ fourth amended petition, which asserted claims for mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief, and a refund of taxes paid. Appellants contended the trial court erred in dismissing the petition, allegedly sua sponte, arguing primarily that the trial court had applied an incorrect standard of review. They also contended the trial court erred in declining to find OCGA 10-9-10 unconstitutional. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. View "Love et al. v. Fulton Cty. Bd. of Tax Assessors et al." on Justia Law