Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed the trial court's grant of a motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient for the jury to convict appellee Marcus Jackson of murder and related charges for the death of the victim Brandon Horton. Because the trial court was reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence pursuant to "Jackson v. Virginia," (443 U.S. 307 (1979)) and not pursuant to OCGA 5-5-21, the trial court was not acting as the Òthirteenth jurorÓ and could not weigh the evidence or otherwise exercise itÕs own discretion. Rather, the Supreme Court applied the standard of review as listed in "Manuel v. Georgia,"(711 SE2d 676) (2011)). Applying this standard, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Georgia v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Jerome Allen appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. His sole challenge was that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Finding no merit to Allen's contention, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences. View "Allen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Beth Ann Muse was tried by jury and convicted of murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, both stemming from the fatal shooting of her husband, Mark. At trial, Appellant admitted that she killed Mark, but she argued that the killing was justified. On appeal to the Supreme Court, she contended she was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed her conviction. View "Muse v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff William Zeagler was employed by the defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company when he was injured on the job: the train on which he was working collided with a logging truck at a grade crossing. He sued Norfolk Southern under the Federal EmployersÕ Liability Act (FELA), claiming that the railroad negligently failed to train him on how to avoid or mitigate injury in the event of a grade-crossing collision. The trial court granted summary judgment to Norfolk Southern after concluding that the railroad had no duty to train its employees on what to do when a grade-crossing collision is imminent. The Court of Appeals reversed that judgment. Two issues were presented to the Supreme Court on appeal: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial courtÕs order granting summary judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern; and (2) whether ZeaglerÕs failure-to-train claim was preempted or precluded by Federal Railroad Administration regulations. The Supreme Court concluded that the answer to both questions was no. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the appellate court's order. View "Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Zeagler" on Justia Law

Appellant Valerie Carey pled guilty, under a negotiated plea agreement, to all counts in a 13-count indictment that charged her and her husband with malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of their daughter. In pleading guilty, Carey avoided the death sentence and received life with the possibility of parole for murder, plus concurrent terms of imprisonment for the other offenses that did not merge. Carey subsequently sought and was granted the right to file an out-of-time appeal, and now claiming that her plea was invalid because it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Because the record on its face did not support Carey's challenge to her guilty plea, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Carey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Loviet Edwards was tried by jury and convicted of two murders in connection with the killings of Tykiah Palmer and her unnamed baby, among other crimes. Edwards appealed, arguing the trial court erred when it admitted a prior statement of a witness, and when it admitted certain photographs of the victims. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err when it admitted this evidence, and accordingly affirmed. View "Edwards v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Raymon Napoleon Walton was tried by jury and convicted of murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, and theft by taking, all in connection with the death of Alkenyatta Wilson. He appealed, contending that the State failed to prove that Harris County was the proper venue. Walton also claimed that the trial court erred when it gave a preliminary charge to the jury and when it denied his motion for mistrial. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Walton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Floydzell Michael Johnson appealed his conviction and sentence for felony murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon stemming from the shooting death of J. B. Melton, IV. On appeal, he argued, among other things, a number of traverse jurors were excused from service without making a proper showing of good cause. Because the felony murder count was predicated upon the felony of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the trial court erred in sentencing appellant for the firearm possession charge. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated appellant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but affirmed in all other respects. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Antwain Miller appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon stemming from the fatal shooting of Ricky Coverson. Miller’s sole challenge on appeal was that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no merit to Miller's assertion, the Supreme Court affirmed his sentences and convictions. View "Miller v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Darius Jordan was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, and other crimes stemming from the shooting death of James Yarbrough. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the court admitted evidence of his telephonic statements to a friend in violation of Miranda. Furthermore, he argued the court erred in denying his motions for mistrial, and for failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jordan v. Georgia" on Justia Law