Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, aggravated child molestation, and child molestation. At issue was whether the court of appeals improperly limited the court's holding in Division 3 of Woodard v. State. Woodard struck down, as violation of the equal protection of the law, a 1995 amendment to the Child Hearsay Statute, OCGA 24-3-16, that expanded the scope of the hearsay exception to allow admission of out-of-court statements by all children under age 14 who witnessed sexual contact or physical abuse, as opposed to only children who were themselves the victims of such abuse. The court concluded that Woodard's reasoning could not be sustained. Thus, while it clearly should not be extended to the circumstances of the case, the court thought it was more appropriate simply to overrule Division 3. Accordingly, there was no reversible error and the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was found guilty of kidnapping with bodily injury to a female victim, rape of the female victim, kidnapping a male victim, and armed robbery. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on general grounds in February 2000 through his trial counsel but his case was then shuffled among several defense lawyers for almost a decade, with little progress made on the pending new trial motion. After defendant's current counsel took over his representation, defendant filed an amended motion for a new trial in April 2000. Defendant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal to the court after the trial court denied the amended motion on the merits in February 2011. The court held that, because defendant's cruel and unusual punishment claim was not timely raised in the trial court, review of its merits had been waived on appeal, and so it did not invoke the constitutional question jurisdiction. Defendant's other constitutional claims were not novel, and because there was no other basis for the court's jurisdiction, the court transferred the case back to the court of appeals.

Defendant was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with a shooting death of the victim. Defendant appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the trial court erred in admitting statements the victim made to a police investigator on the day she was murdered. The court found no error in the admission of this evidence where the victim was not reporting a crime to a policeman, she was not attempting to build a case against defendant, but she was merely seeking advice from a knowledgeable friend who happened to be a policemen about a difficult situation. The court also concluded that even if trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to object to the statements at issue, defendant could not prove that there was a reasonable probability that the trial result would have been different if not for the deficient performance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his conviction for the felony murder and aggravated assault of the victim, contending that the trial court made a number of evidentiary errors. The court held that the trial court did not err by failing give a charge and if there was any error, it was harmless; the trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress where the officers had reasonably trustworthy information to conclude that defendant was involved in the murder of the victim; defendant's contention that ten similar transactions were admitted in error lacked merit where they were sufficiently similar to the crime against defendant and were properly admitted; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict; and the trial court did not err by denying his motion for a mistrial after the jurors watched a portion of his videotaped statement which they were not supposed to view because the jury clearly indicated that it could and would follow the trial court's curative instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was found guilty of felony murder and cruelty to children. The trial court entered judgment of conviction for the felony murder and sentenced defendant to life imprisonment. The cruelty to children charge merged with the felony murder convictions. Defendant subsequently appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court held that defendant made an insufficient showing of prejudice and thus his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must fail and defendant's due process rights were not violated by the 10-year delay between trial and appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pled guilty to felony murder in connection with the arson that caused his stepfather's death. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The court found that the plea was voluntary and held that defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not properly before the court on direct appeal because it was not raised below.

Defendant was convicted of malice murder in connection with the deaths of two victims. Defendant's amended motion for new trial was denied and defendant subsequently appealed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; the trial court did not err in allowing a medical examiner to characterize the manner of death for the two victims; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding exculpatory evidence when it refused to admit a 911 call defendant made to report the fire; any error as to the felony arson charge did not affect the outcome of the proceedings; and the court rejected defendant's claim that the trial court's charge to the jury failed to inform them that the "not guilty" option could operate as a general acquittal of the murder charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with a shooting death. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred by excluding from trial evidence that the victim had been molesting defendant's niece and refusing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The court held that it was error not to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense under the circumstances and the court could not say the error was harmless. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his convictions for two counts of malice murder in connection with the fatal shootings of two victims, one count of kidnapping with bodily injury as the result of the abduction and rape of a third victim, and one count of kidnapping resulting from the abduction of a fourth victim. The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence photographs of videotapes labeled with violent content which were found in one of the two vehicles in which defendant and his family were attempting to flee at the time of his arrest, in response to defendant's insanity defense; the trial court did not err in permitting into evidence photographs of tattoos on his body taken after he was in custody in response to defendant's insanity defense; and even assuming that a prosecutorial comment raised the specter of defendant's dangerousness in the future, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant filed a pro se complaint for a preliminary injunction and other relief, seeking, among other things the return of the records that the Rossville Police had seized during a search, claiming that he needed the records to comply with the annual filing requirements set forth in OCGA 16-12-22.2(j). The court concluded that appellant wanted the trial court in this civil case to interfere with his ongoing criminal prosecution, so the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint.