Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Andre Desire was convicted of felony murder and theft by taking in connection with the strangulation death of Amado Diaz-Avila. He unsuccessfully moved for a new trial and appealed, arguing the trial court erred by permitting the State to present evidence of his drug use and prior thefts. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Desire v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Deonshowna Jarnigan and Grant Alexander Davis were tried together and convicted by jury for the murder of Dontavious Blair, among other crimes. Jarnigan and Davis appeal, both contending that the trial court improperly commented on the evidence in the presence of the jury. Davis alone also contends that the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence at trial, when it restricted his cross-examination of a witness for the prosecution, and when it charged the jury. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Davis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Dwight Brown, a former President and CEO of Cobb Electric Membership Corporation (Cobb EMC), was indicted in 2011 on charges of theft by taking, filing false statements, conspiracy to defraud Cobb County and the Cobb County School District, and violations of the Georgia RICO statute. These charges stemmed from allegations that Brown stole millions of dollars in "patronage capital" from Cobb EMC's members, including Cobb County and the Cobb County School District. On March 24, 2011, the trial court quashed the indictment on the ground that it was not returned in open court and the order was affirmed on appeal. Meanwhile, anticipating a second indictment, Brown filed a motion to challenge the grand jury array in an attempt to remove Cobb EMC members from the grand jury. The State did not respond to the motion and no ruling was entered. In July, the State obtained a new indictment against Brown setting forth the same charges alleged in the previous indictment, and added charges of influencing and threatening witnesses. Brown filed a motion to abate the second indictment on the ground the grand jury was composed in part of Cobb EMC members who were victims of the alleged crimes. The trial court denied Brown's plea in abatement and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Brown's petition for a writ of certiorari to answer whether the Court of Appeals err in affirming the denial of the defendant's challenge to the impartiality of the grand jurors who returned his second indictment? The Court answered that question in the negative: "In Georgia, our approach to grand jury challenges depends on whether the challenge is propter defectum or propter affectum. If propter defectum, i.e., if a grand juror lacks the capacity to serve, a timely filed plea in abatement will lie. A claim of disqualification propter affectum, on the other hand, i.e., for favor or bias in a particular case, provides no ground for a plea in abatement. In this case, Brown's plea in abatement claimed four grand jurors were members of Cobb EMC and presumably biased." View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Fulton County Solicitor’s Office filed accusations against Appellant John Williamson, charging him with DUI per-se, DUI less-safe, and failure to maintain lane. Williamson filed a speedy trial demand. Prior to this filing, Williamson’s counsel served a copy of the demand on the trial court and the prosecutor. Williamson later filed a motion for discharge and acquittal because he had not been tried within the time parameters for speedy trial. The trial court denied Williamson’s motion for discharge and acquittal, ruling that his demand was deemed to have been filed in the November term and thus that Williamson's motion was premature. Williamson appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed, finding that the September term in which he filed his speedy trial demand did not count because there were insufficient jurors available during that term. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the denial of Williamson's motion for discharge and acquittal. The Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the term in which the defendant filed his speedy trial demand did not count for purposes of determining his entitlement to discharge and acquittal, and therefore, reversed. However, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the defendant nonetheless waived his right to a speedy trial. View "Williamson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Warren Hill was convicted of murdering a fellow inmate by beating him to death with a sink leg embedded with nails. The jury sentenced him to death, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The sentencing court issued the execution order on July 3, 2013, setting defendant's execution for the one-week period of July 13-20, 2013. That execution order was filed after the July 1, 2013 effective date of a new law designating "identifying information" concerning the persons and entities that participate in executions, including those who participate in the procurement of execution drugs, to be a "confidential state secret." Defendant filed suit naming the Commissioner of Corrections and others as defendants, seeking an interlocutory injunction, a permanent injunction, a declaratory judgment, a writ of mandamus, and "[s]ealed discovery of the identity of the compounding pharmacy and the supply chain and manufacturer(s) of any and all ingredients used to produce the lethal drug compound to be injected into [defendant]." Hill alleged that the execution-participant confidentiality statute was unconstitutional on various grounds in that it wrongly denied him information revealing the identities of all those involved in his execution. Defendant's complaint also stated that it was seeking "to enforce the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment under Georgia and Federal Law." The Superior Court granted injunctive relief, and included a stay of execution. The Supreme Court thereafter granted the State's application for discretionary appeal of the Superior Court's order. The Supreme Court concluded that this case was not moot, that the Superior Court had limited but valid jurisdiction over this matter, that the possible availability of forms of discovery beyond what was forbidden by the execution-participant confidentiality statute did not affect this case, that the execution-participant confidentiality statute was not unconstitutional, and that the Superior Court erred by granting what amounted to an interlocutory injunction. View "Owens v. Hill" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Geiger was sentenced to life imprisonment after he was convicted for the felony murder of his live-in girlfriend, predicated upon aggravated assault by stabbing, plus five years to serve consecutively for possession of a knife during the commission of a crime. He appealed on the ground that his arrest on his mother’s property, along with evidence seized at the time of his arrest and statements made as a result of his arrest, should have been suppressed. He also complains that prosecutorial misconduct required a mistrial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Geiger v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Terry Franklin and Maurice Coleman severely beat Kenneth Briddell who died from his injuries three months later. On appeal, appellant alleged the evidence was insufficient to convict him of felony murder. At trial, Coleman and two other witnesses testified that Coleman hit the victim with a gun and appellant stomped and kicked the victim in the head and mouth as the victim was prone on the ground. Appellant did not dispute that he beat the victim. He contended, however, that his actions did not cause the victim’s death because the treating physician listed the cause of death as respiratory arrest and asystole, conditions which were immediately triggered by the tracheal tube becoming dislodged at the hospital. The Supreme Court disagreed with that contention and affirmed appellant's conviction. View "Franklin v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Kevin Wayne Faulkner was tried by jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the fatal shooting of Emmanuel Dawson. He appealed, contending: (1) that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred when it excluded certain testimony at trial; (3) that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury; (4) that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (5) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Faulkner v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Orlando Dyer appealed his conviction for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated battery in connection with the death of his infant daughter, Azyani. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt, the admission of certain evidence at trial, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding no merit to his challenges on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "Dyer v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Sephus Wells was convicted of felony murder based on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in connection with the shooting death of Corey Sinkfield. On appeal, he argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective representation and that the trial court violated OCGA 17-8-57 by making an impermissible comment to the jury. Finding no reversible errors, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wells v. Georgia" on Justia Law