Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Demicio White was convicted for the shooting death of Derek Hazley. On appeal of his conviction, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient that a rational trier of fact could have convicted appellant. Accordingly, the Court affirmed his conviction. View "White v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant James Watson challenged the constitutionality of Georgia's solicitation of sodomy statute (OCGA 16-6-15). Watson, who at the time was an officer with the City of Nashville Police Department, was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of solicitation of sodomy as well as the felony violation of oath of office, arising from his interactions with 17-year-old. Watson contended the statute was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him, as an infringement on his rights to free speech, privacy, and due process of law under the United States and Georgia Constitutions. Watson also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the indictment, and the trial court's jury instructions. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the solicitation of sodomy statute, but found that the evidence was insufficient to convict Watson under that statute. Furthermore, because the counts in the indictment charging Watson with violating his oath of office were expressly premised on a finding that he had violated the solicitation of sodomy statute, the Court reversed the convictions on those counts. View "Watson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Corey Wallace was found guilty of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Willie Merritt. On appeal, he contended that the trial court's charge prevented the jury from properly considering a voluntary manslaughter verdict on the felony murder counts of his indictment and that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wallace v. Georgia" on Justia Law

James Thomas was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Shamar Edwards, as well as aggravated assaults of Patrick Edwards, Donald Jumper, Amber McAdory, and Quintisha Page. Thomas appealed, contending that: the trial court erred when it failed to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants; when it admitted certain evidence; when it allowed the prosecuting attorney to ask leading questions of certain witnesses; and when it refused to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thomas v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A Brooks County grand jury indicted Willie Phelps, Kenneth Brinson and Kenneth Williams, for felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Each defendant was indicted individually and as a party to the crimes. At a hearing, Phelps intended to plead guilty to felony murder and to the count of the indictment alleging aggravated assault. However, during the proceedings, it became apparent that the indictment's count regarding the aggravated assault was not properly worded. A separate accusation was prepared, addressing that crime alone, with a separate case number, and Phelps pled guilty to felony murder under Count One of the indictment, and guilty to the aggravated assault under the separate accusation. The next day, the trial court entered an order sentencing Phelps to life in prison for felony murder, and a separate order sentencing him to twenty years in prison for aggravated assault, to be served concurrently with the sentence for felony murder. An order of nolle prosequi was subsequently entered as to the remaining counts of the indictment. Phelps appealed the denial of his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas, citing problems with the indictment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other prejudicial errors at trial. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "Phelps v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Paulo Ross was arrested in December 2004 and indicted in March 2011 for murder in connection with the 2002 shooting death of Quassim Rahman. Ross unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. In January 2013 on motion for reconsideration, the trial court found a violation of Ross's right to a speedy trial and granted his plea in bar. Because there was no material change in the evidentiary posture of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not have authority to reconsider its initial order denying Ross's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court reversed. View "Georgia v. Ross" on Justia Law

Tony Williams appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, armed robbery, burglary, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, tampering with evidence, and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer. On appeal, Williams challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the alleged improper impeachment of State's witnesses. The Supreme Court found Appellant's challenges to be without merit and affirmed. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Macques Antonio Walker was found guilty of the felony murder, two counts of homicide by vehicle, one based on reckless driving and one based on the failure to stop and render aid to after being involved in an automobile accident; failure to stop and render aid; aggravated assault of another; and driving with no proof of insurance. The trial court treated the guilty verdicts on both counts of homicide by vehicle and the failure to stop and render aid count as merged into the felony murder conviction and entered judgment of convictions for felony murder, aggravated assault, and no proof of insurance. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for aggravated assault and driving with no proof of insurance. However, because the guilty verdicts for felony murder based on aggravated assault and homicide by vehicle based on reckless driving are mutually exclusive under established precedent, the Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction for felony murder, set aside the guilty verdicts for felony murder and homicide by vehicle based on reckless driving, and remand the case for a possible new trial on those charges. Furthermore, the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict for homicide by vehicle based on the failure to stop and render aid. View "Walker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Emory Teasley and his brothers Christopher ("Chris") and Tyrone were indicted and tried together and found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, and the aggravated assault of James Riden; the aggravated assault of Markez Jones; possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; and tampering with evidence. The Supreme Court previously affirmed Chris's convictions; and in this case affirmed Appellant's convictions too. During the trial, at which Chris did not testify, the court admitted into evidence statements that Chris and Appellant had made to the police shortly after the shootings. Each statement was redacted to eliminate any mention of co-defendants. Appellant contends that because Chris's statement was inconsistent with his own statement, the jury could not possibly follow the court's limiting instruction to consider Chris's statement only against Chris, resulting in a violation of Appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Appellant also complains that the prosecutor's comment during his opening statement that Chris and Appellant gave separate statements that did not match improperly asked the jury to consider Chris's statement directly against Appellant, undoing the effect of the trial court's later limiting instruction. Appellant also contended that the trial court erred in admitting his statement into evidence, asserting that he was in police custody at the time he made it but was not advised of his constitutional rights as required by Miranda. Finding no error in the trial court's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Teasley v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Patrick Sullivan's certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Because the Court agreed with Sullivan that his appellate counsel's performance was deficient and there was a reasonable probability that counsel's error prejudiced the defense, the habeas court's ruling was reversed. View "Sullivan v. Kemp" on Justia Law