Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Stephen LaBrellie Rucker appealed his conviction for the aggravated assault and felony murder of Jeremy Kidd. Rucker asserted the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for mistrial on the ground that the prosecutor improperly inserted his character into evidence and also erred in refusing to permit his trial counsel to impeach a prosecution witness with proof of a pending indictment against him to show the witness’s bias. Rucker also requested that the case be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rucker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After a joint trial, appellants Curtis Billings and Matthew Ross (also known as Matthew Wells) were convicted of murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Joseph Gunn. Appellants contended that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the crimes of which they were convicted and sentenced. The Court affirmed Billings' conviction and sentence, but vacated Ross's sentence and remanded his case for resentencing. View "Ross v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants Atu Lewis and Jacque Dominique Clark were convicted of murder and related crimes stemming from a home invasion. Lewis was sentenced to life in prison without parole for malice murder and a term of years for his other crimes. Clark was sentenced to life in prison with parole for felony murder and a term of years for his remaining crimes. On appeal, Lewis claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him for malice murder and the other charges for which he was convicted based on the fact that the State's key witness was an accomplice to the crime. Clark claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the basis that key witness' testimony was uncorroborated. Finding the evidence sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the crimes of which they were convicted and sentenced, the Supreme Court affirmed both appellants' convictions and sentences. View "Lewis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In October 2009, a Catoosa County Sheriff's deputy pretending to be a 14-year-old girl named "Tiffany" posted a listing on an internet website indicating she was looking for something fun to do over an upcoming holiday weekend. Appellant Timothy Grube, then a 27-year-old male, responded to the post and subsequently exchanged numerous e-mail communications with undercover officers who were posing as Tiffany. Grube ultimately arranged to meet Tiffany for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations. He was arrested by police when he arrived at the agreed upon meeting place. Grube was indicted on charges of computer pornography, attempted aggravated child molestation and attempted child molestation. The trial court determined all three counts of the indictment were deficient because each failed to identify the victim of the alleged crimes. The State filed a second indictment charging Grube with the same crimes but amended the language used so as to identify the victim as "'Tiffany,' a person believed by the accused to be a child" and "'Tiffany,' a person he believed to be a 14-year-old girl." Grube filed a special demurrer to the second indictment, asserting the indictment failed to again sufficiently identify the victim. The trial court agreed, and the indictment was dismissed. After the Court of Appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by finding the second indictment insufficient to withstand a special demurrer. Finding that the second indictment satisfied the dual goals of informing the defendant of the charges against him and protecting him from a possible second prosecution for the same offense. Accordingly, Grube's indictment was not subject to the special demurrer and the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. View "Georgia v. Grube" on Justia Law

Appellant Monty Simpson was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life in prison for the strangulation death of his girlfriend Beverly Jean Williams. Appellant contended on appeal that the circumstantial evidence against him was insufficient to convict him of murder. Alternatively, appellant argued that someone else was the perpetrator. These contentions were not borne out by the trial record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Simpson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joseph Norman Vanstavern appealed the denial of his motion for new trial and his convictions and sentences for malice murder and possession of a firearm or knife during the commission of a crime in connection with the fatal shooting of Joey Lankford Rush. He claimed the trial court erred in its mention to the jury of a redacted count in his indictment and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding the challenges to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "VanStavern v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Howard Holloman, Jr., appealed his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and cruelty to children, contending that the trial court gave the jury an incomplete instruction on aggravated assault, certain text messages were improperly admitted into evidence, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and improper impeachment evidence was admitted during his motion for new trial. Finding no error or ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed Holloman's conviction. View "Holloman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Hoehn was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime relating to the shooting death of Robert Congleton. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to sustain his objection after a juror directly asked a witness a question and in denying his claim that the felony murder count of the indictment was defective because it failed to allege the elements of the underlying felony of aggravated assault. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hoehn .v Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ronnie Faircloth was convicted of murder and other offenses in connection with the September 2007 shooting death of his wife. Faircloth appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior difficulties between the couple and testimony regarding past statements made by the victim. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Faircloth v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Shinderen Durden appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes relating to the shooting death of Shannon King. Appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the crimes of which he was convicted and sentenced. The Court affirmed the convictions and sentences except for Appellant's sentence for aggravated assault, which was vacated, and his felony sentence for tampering with evidence, which was vacated and remanded for resentencing as a misdemeanor. View "Durden v. Georgia" on Justia Law