Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Gregory Johnson was convicted after a jury trial for the malice murder of Carol Kaye Lewis and for other related crimes. He appealed his convictions and the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial in which he raised claims of trial court error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ellery was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. He appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ellery v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jessie Ben Mathis was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of Souphoth Thammavongsa. Appellant's motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed that decision and his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mathis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Chaunson McKibbins was tried by jury and convicted of murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, and concealing the death of another. He appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the indictment failed to properly charge kidnapping with bodily injury, that the prosecuting attorney made improper and prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury, and that the trial court erred with respect to certain evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. The Supreme Court found no merit in these claims, and affirmed. View "McKibbins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Corey Blaine Coggins was found guilty of malice murder and felony murder in connection with the stabbing death of Daniel Smith. On appeal Coggins contended, among other things, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to improperly bolster a witness’ credibility with the introduction of a prior consistent statement. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Coggins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In November 1995, Levon Burch entered a guilty plea and was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. More than 16 years later, he filed a motion for leave to bring an out-of-time appeal from his conviction. The trial court found that the issues Burch sought to raise in his out-of-time appeal could not be determined wholly by reference to the record, and for that reason, denied his motion. From that denial, Burch appealed. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Burch v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Douglas Brown was charged with driving under the influence (and other crimes) after he was stopped and arrested by officers at a vehicle checkpoint. Appellant filed a motion to suppress on the ground that the roadblock violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted the motion, and on interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals used the correct legal analysis in assessing whether the decision to implement the roadblock was made by supervisory personnel rather than field officers, for a legitimate primary purpose. The Supreme Court rejected appellant's initial argument that the checkpoint was unconstitutional because the officer who authorized it was not a programmatic-level executive. However, the trial court's determination that the officer made the decision while acting as a field officer and not in advance as a supervisor was correct, and the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court on that point. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

David Bates was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the stabbing death of his next-door neighbor. On appeal, he contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Because the evidence was sufficient to convict him on the murder and armed robbery counts and the jury found him not guilty on the burglary count, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bates v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Raymond S. Baker was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with two home invasions. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred by denying him a thorough and sifting cross-examination of a key witness and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Finding that these contentions had no merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Baker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant James Williams was charged with driving under the influence and violation of the open alcohol container law after he was stopped and arrested by officers at a vehicle checkpoint. Appellant filed a motion to suppress on the ground that the roadblock violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, and on interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals used the correct legal analysis in assessing whether the decision to implement the roadblock was made by supervisory personnel rather than field officers, for a legitimate primary purpose. Applying that analysis here, the Court concluded that the sergeant who authorized the checkpoint at which Appellant was stopped properly made the decision to implement that roadblock in advance as a supervisor and not while acting as an officer in the field. The trial court erred, however, in denying Appellant's motion to suppress, because the State failed to prove that the roadblock program had an appropriate primary purpose other than advancing "the general interest in crime control." The appellate court therefore erred in upholding the trial court's ruling. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law