Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial after he was found guilty of, among other things, felony murder. The court held that defendant's objection that the State did not move for correction of the record and properly comply with the procedural requirements of OCGA 5-6-41(f) was without merit and, moreover, the trial court was authorized to conclude that, to the extent that OCGA 5-6-41(f) was applicable, the required hearing was held with notice to both parties and the oath was administered. The court also held that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow the introduction of the transcript of a witness' prior testimony. Finally, the court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of showing any substantial likelihood of a different result but for counsel's deficient performance and the court therefore found that there was no error in the trial court's rejection of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance.

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial after he was found guilty of malice murder. Defendant contended that the trial court erroneously failed to conduct a hearing on his notice of intent to introduce prior acts of violence by the victim against third parties and thus made no ruling as the admissibility thereof. The court held, however, that defendant waived his right to the hearing and ruling under USCR 31.6. The court also held that, assuming that trial counsel's performance was deficient, there was no reasonable probability that the result of the jury trial would have been different even if the evidence defendant now brought forth had been admitted. Finally, the court held that there was no denial of due process related to the delay in holding a hearing on his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant appealed from an order denying a filing of a petition for writ of mandamus. Appellant sought to file a petition for mandamus to compel judges of the court to dismiss his citation for speeding, to recuse one of them for reviewing his pleading, and to "impeach" certain of them due to alleged misconduct. Because appellant failed to carry his burden and his petition showed on its face "such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it cannot be reasonably believed that the court could grant any relief against any party named in the pleading," the court concluded that the trial court did not err by denying the petition.

Defendant appealed his convictions for murder and for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The court held that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion for a new trial where the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. The court also held that the trial court did not err when it refused to give defendant's requested charge on mere presence where there was no basis for the trial court to give such a charge. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant appealed his convictions for malice murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the fatal shooting of two victims. Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission into evidence of certain testimony. The court held that the challenges were without merit where the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted and where defendant failed to object to the admission of the evidence at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed from his conviction of malice murder. The court held that the district court did not err in overruling defense counsel's objection to certain testimony based on improper bolstering where the testimony was admissible under the "rule of completeness" and rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary claim. The court also rejected defendant's four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was found guilty of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Defendant appealed after the denial of a motion for a new trial. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted and rejected defendant's claim that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress the pistol used to shoot the victim.

Defendant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence after being stopped for a traffic violation. The court granted a writ of certiorari to determine when the results of a state-administered Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test must be given to a defendant accused of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA 40-6-391. It was undisputed in this case that the officer delivered to defendant the required implied consent notice in an accurate and timely manner thereby informing him of his right to an independent test. Having done so, the State was under no constitutional duty to immediately inform defendant of the results of the State-administered breath test. Because the court held that the procedures followed by the State comported with the fundamental fairness required by due process, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. At issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and his request for a subpoena. Because the court held that the arresting officer's detention of defendant was a seizure and there was no evidence that the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop, the court reversed.

Defendant appealed his conviction of malice murder in connection with the beating death of the victim. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the similar transaction evidence, the court affirmed the judgment.