Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellees James and Lawson and two other men were charged in an indictment for the 2005 murders of Jeremiah Ingram and Fatima Fisher. James and Lawson were convicted of murder in separate trials; another co-defendant was acquitted in a trial that took place after the trials of appellees; and the fourth co-indictee pled guilty to a charge of voluntary manslaughter. Both appellees moved for new trial and after conducting a hearing on appellee James's motion, the trial court issued an order in September 2011 that granted new trials to both appellees. The trial court based its grant of new trials on the unavailability at appellees' trials of a piece of evidence that was available at the trial of the co-indictee who was acquitted. The evidence at issue was the second page of the three-page investigative summary compiled by the Office of the Fulton County Medical Examiner. The trial court called the missing page a "critical piece of evidence" and ruled that new trials were required. The State directly appealed the trial court's grant of new trials to appellees Christopher James and Herman Lawson, co-indictees who were convicted in 2008 of malice murder in separate jury trials in the Superior Court of Fulton County. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred and reversed the trial court's order granting new trials to James and Lawson. View "Georgia v. James" on Justia Law

Appellant Tracy Lashawn Smith was charged with felony murder (predicated on the underlying felony of either aggravated assault or aggravated battery), aggravated assault and aggravated battery by indictment. The jury found appellant guilty of aggravated assault and aggravated battery, but was unable to reach a verdict on the felony murder charge. The trial court granted a mistrial as to the felony murder charge. The State announced its intent to retry appellant on the felony murder count and appellant filed a plea in bar on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court denied appellant's plea. On appeal to the Supreme Court, appellant argued that the State could not retry him for felony murder without violating the double jeopardy clause because it prosecuted him on the underlying counts of aggravated assault and aggravated battery, the jury found him guilty on those counts, and the State would have to prosecute him on the underlying counts again in order to obtain a felony murder conviction. Disagreeing with this contention, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

James R. Harper, III, Jerry W. Chapman, and Jeffery L. Pombert appealed a trial court's orders denying their various motions challenging charges of theft and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. The charges related to the property of Glock, Inc., and various entities associated with it, and the defendants raised issues regarding the relevant statutes of limitation. Harper, Chapman, and Pombert were indicted and charged through a pattern of "setting up entities and bank accounts and transferring Glock assets and funds through and among various of these entities and accounts, [thereby] divert[ing] and attempt[ing] to divert Glock funds to their own use and control." The defendants filed a general demurrer, special demurrer, plea in bar, and motion to dismiss, asserting various reasons why the indictment and prosecution were infirm, primarily that the relevant statutes of limitation had expired. The trial court denied the requested relief, and the defendants sought an interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred upon an erroneous conclusion that OCGA 17-3-2.2 applied with regard to Counts Two through Eleven in the indictment, and that the date that each crime became "known" within the meaning of OCGA 17-3-2 (2) was the date upon which each crime was reported to law enforcement officers. "But, as to any count of the indictment for which it cannot be shown that Mr. Glock was the owner of the property allegedly stolen, the correct date to apply in analyzing the statute of limitation is the date that the crime became known to the victim of the crime." Thus, the Court concluded, in analyzing this issue as to these counts, the trial court made no finding on threshold date determinations. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a determination, under the proper standard, of when the statutory limitation began. View "Harper v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Deandra Antwan Green filed a special demurrer alleging that his indictment was void because it failed to show that the charged offenses occurred on a date prior to the grand jury's return of the indictment. The trial court found that the court clerk had made an error in writing the date on which the indictment was returned in open court, but that the error was cured by the clerk's actions and testimony. The Supreme Court granted Green's application for interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court was correct in overruling the special demurrer. Upon review, the Court held that the clerk's clerical error in entering the indictment's return date was an immaterial defect that could be corrected. Therefore, the Court affirmed. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Christopher Gay was convicted of escape in 2011 in Cobb County and was incarcerated in the Northeast Correctional Complex in Mountain City, Tennessee. He has filed a petition with the Georgia Supreme Court for the writ of mandamus in which he sought to have Brian Owens, the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, to award him additional pre-trial sentence credit. Gay initially filed his petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County; however, the clerk of that court, citing OCGA 9-10-14(b), returned his petition to him without filing it. After reviewing its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court did not strike the petition from its docket for failing to meet the requirements of OCGA 9-10-14(b). Rather, the Court dismissed Gay’s petition because his petition for a writ of mandamus was one that should have been filed initially in superior court. View "Gay v. Owens" on Justia Law

Linda Brown appealed her conviction for the malice murder of her three-year-old son, Garry. Appellant contended that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support her conviction and that her trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to call a medical expert to testify in her defense. Finding no merit to those arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Nicholas McCoy was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Christopher Duhart. He appealed, asserting the trial court erred by: (1) failing to suppress a videotaped statement he made to police in the course of a custodial interrogation; and, (2) refusing to grant a mistrial when a detective testified appellant was videotaped selling drugs at the scene of the crime. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCoy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Raymond Nichols appealed his conviction for malice murder in connection with the strangulation death of his mother, Alma Nichols. His only challenge was that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him. Finding the challenge to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nichols v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ntyono Pennie and co-defendant Torrence Sanders were convicted of the felony murder of Shirley Akins and other offenses. Appellant contended that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a detailed jury charge on proximate causation. In light of evidence and charges that the trial court gave, trial counsel’s decision not to request a separate charge on proximate causation "was not patently unreasonable and did not constitute deficient performance." Considering the jury charges that were given and the relevant evidence, there was no reasonable probability that a separate proximate cause charge would have produced a different verdict. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court properly denied Appellant's motion for a new trial. View "Pennie v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Thaddeus Porter was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Willie Clay. His motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed, asserting that the trial court erred by permitting the State to present evidence that a tipster was not a participant in the crimes and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Because appellant raised the tipster issue for the first time on appeal, it was not preserved for appellate review. Even absent the procedural waiver, however, appellant could not show his newly asserted grounds for objection would have resulted in exclusion of the challenged testimony. The challenged testimony was limited to the findings of the detective’s investigation and did not include or make reference to out-of-court statements made to him by the tipster. Accordingly, appellant showed no prejudice and his claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s preparation and handling of witnesses failed. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. View "Porter v. Georgia" on Justia Law