Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Elkin Clarke appealed his convictions for the malice murder of Michael Toles and the simple assault of Aisha Albritton. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to remove a potential juror for cause. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that although "Juror 21" initially expressed some reservation about her impartiality, she ultimately confirmed that she did not want any emotionality to impede her judgment, and that she was a fair person. Under these facts, the Supreme Court concluded there was no manifest abuse of the trial court's discretion in not excusing the juror for cause. View "Clarke v. Georgia" on Justia Law

During his murder trial in March 2011, appellant Corey Dennis withdrew his plea of not guilty and plead guilty to the felony murders of Jerry Lee Lawrence and Harold Reese, Jr., to two counts of kidnaping with bodily injury, to the armed robbery of Reese and to arson of Reese's property, to two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. His plea was accepted and the trial court imposed four sentences of life imprisonment, to be served concurrently, followed by sentences totaling thirty years, to be served consecutively to the sentences of life imprisonment. In July 2012, appellant filed an out-of-time appeal which the trial court denied after finding that appellant had not established his entitlement to an out-of-time appeal. Appellant then filed this appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court's finding that appellant did not establish entitlement to an out-of-time appeal was correct, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for out-of-time appeal. View "Dennis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Phillip Chad Dunn was convicted and sentenced for the malice murder of his wife, Shelley Dyan Dunn, and two counts of child cruelty in the third degree. On appeal, appellant contended the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his 2011 conviction for the aggravated assault and aggravated battery of his wife, and in refusing to admit evidence of the victim's blood alcohol level at the time of her death. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Dunn v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jesse Lamar Arnold was tried by jury and convicted of the aggravated stalking and aggravated assault of his estranged wife, Lakeisha, and the murder of Eric Mattox. Arnold appealed, contending that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because he alleged his lawyer did not adequately investigate his mental health in her preparation for trial. Finding no merit in this contention, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Arnold v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The State appealed the grant of habeas corpus relief to defendant Michelle Hall, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the presumption of prejudice when reviewing defendant's sole claim that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that defendant failed to show actual prejudice and that her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been rejected, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Seabolt v. Hall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, appellants Desmond Griffin and Charlie Boyd were found guilty of the felony murder of James Clark based on the underlying felony of aggravated assault. Griffin was also found guilty of separate charges of aggravated assault against Ronald Rosson and the simple battery of Clark. Appellants’ motions for new trial were denied, and they appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error in the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Boyd v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Brandon Leonard appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the shooting deaths of Thomas Darr and Jim Cates. Defendant argued that the admission of certain evidence at trial was done in error, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the admission of that evidence, and for his conduct during voir dire. Finding no error or ineffective counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leonard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kasaem Toomer challenged his 2009 convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Justin Cox. Appellant contended that the trial court erred in rejecting his "Batson" claim that the prosecutor used three peremptory strikes to exclude prospective jurors solely because of their race, thereby violating his right to equal protection of the law. Appellant also contended that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his repeated mistrial motions after the State played portions of his videotaped police interviews in which he admitted that he was on probation, had been arrested for fighting, and had been convicted of burglary. Furthermore, Appellant asserted that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no merit to Appellant's claims on appeal and affirmed his convictions. View "Toomer v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Eugene Hammond appealed the trial court's denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. In 2000, Hammond was convicted superior court on charges of the felony murder of his son, the aggravated assault of his wife, and of making terroristic threats toward his wife. On March 10, 2000, he was sentenced to life in prison, and an additional prison term of ten years, to be served consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. On August 11, 2011, Hammond filed a motion in arrest of judgment, claiming that his indictment was void because it had failed to allege venue, and that he was improperly convicted of more than one crime arising from the same conduct. On November 1, 2011, the trial court denied the motion, finding that it was without jurisdiction to consider it because it was untimely, and expressly stating that the allegations in the motion were without merit. As "a trial court's ruling on a motion in arrest of judgment is normally directly appealable to whichever appellate court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case," Hammond appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding that Hammond's motion in arrest of judgment was not filed in the term at which the judgment was obtained, but more than eleven years later, and was thus untimely, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Hammond v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The State appealed the superior court's grant of a new trial to Xavier Harris, who was found guilty of felony murder and related crimes in connection with the August 1, 2005 fatal shooting of Ron Strozier and the conspiracy to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon of an individual known only as "DBone." For the reasons that follow, we affirm. In March 2006, a grand jury returned a 17-count indictment against Harris and four other men: Michael Grissom; Markell Dorsey; Rico Sims; and Darnell Amaker. Harris was named in all but four of the counts, which included charges of malice and felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy, criminal damage to property, and firearms possession. The defendants were all tried together, and the State argued that the crimes were related and part and parcel of the same conspiracy. The jury found Harris guilty of Strozier's felony murder predicated on the conspiracy to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against Strozier, conspiracy to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against D-Bone, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property in the first degree; voluntary manslaughter; involuntary manslaughter based upon reckless conduct; and reckless conduct. Harris was also found guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault against D-Bone, conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property in the first degree, and possession of a firearm during the commission of multiple crimes against D-Bone. Harris was either found not guilty of the remaining charges or they were resolved by directed verdicts of acquittal. Harris moved to vacate his convictions and for a new trial; however, by that time the judge who presided over the trial had retired, and a different judge considered the motion for a new trial. This judge granted Harris a new trial on the general grounds, expressly finding that the verdicts were decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence, contrary to the law and principles of equity and justice, and that the evidence warranted the court exercising its discretion to grant Harris a new trial. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court found no abuse of the successor court's discretion in granting Harris a new trial on the general grounds. View "Georgia v. Harris" on Justia Law