Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In January 2020, Nelaunte Grant was convicted of felony murder related to the shooting death of Shawntray Grant in June 2018. Nelaunte Grant, along with several co-indictees, was charged in a 108-count indictment for crimes related to Shawntray’s death and other unrelated crimes. However, Nelaunte Grant was only charged with felony murder predicated on armed robbery and armed robbery, not the additional crimes. After a joint trial, she was found guilty of felony murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life in prison. She filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to support her conviction for felony murder.The trial court denied the motion for a new trial. Nelaunte Grant appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for felony murder, both as a matter of constitutional due process and under Georgia statutory law. She argued that the State failed to prove she was a party to the crimes and that the evidence showed only her mere association with a co-defendant, Osha Dunham, who was directly responsible for Shawntray’s death.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence, while not overwhelming, was sufficient to support Nelaunte Grant’s conviction. The court noted that the jury could reasonably infer that Nelaunte Grant advised Dunham about Shawntray’s winnings and whereabouts, hatched a plan with Dunham to rob Shawntray, and then attempted to conceal any evidence of her participation in the crimes. The court also rejected Nelaunte Grant’s argument that the State failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than her guilt, finding that the jury was authorized to reject as unreasonable the hypothesis that she "innocently" communicated information about Shawntray’s winnings and whereabouts to Dunham and later made false statements to investigators out of fear. View "GRANT v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Edward Tavarez was convicted for malice murder and other offenses related to the shooting of Travis Ridley during a supposed drug deal. The indictment charged Tavarez with malice murder, three counts of felony murder, criminal solicitation, two counts of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Tavarez was found guilty of all charges against him and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for malice murder, among other sentences for the remaining charges.Tavarez appealed his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to hearsay testimony by a detective that bolstered the account of a key witness. He also argued that the trial court erred by conducting the trial while his legs were shackled, forcing him to choose between not participating in bench conferences or the jury seeing him in these restraints.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that Tavarez failed to show that any deficient performance of counsel in failing to object to the detective’s testimony prejudiced his defense. The court also found that Tavarez failed to preserve his claim about the shackling itself, and he has not shown that he was excluded from any particular bench conference at which he had a right to be present. View "TAVAREZ v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal from an in rem civil-asset-forfeiture proceeding against over $1 million held in various bank accounts, real property, and other property. The State alleges that the property was used, intended for use, or constituted the proceeds derived from the commission of numerous crimes related to the theft, purchase, and sale of catalytic converters and other regulated metal property. The appellants, Garrett Smith, Stacey Smith, SmithCo Recycling, LLC, and SmithCo Transfer, LLC, claimed to be the owners of the seized property and moved to dismiss the complaint.The appellants argued that the trial court had failed to timely hold a bench trial or order a continuance, in violation of OCGA § 9-16-12 (f), and that the State had failed to allege the essential elements of a crime, in violation of OCGA § 916-12 (a). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to address three questions. The court concluded that the appellants are estopped from arguing on appeal that the date SmithCo Transfer filed its answer was not equivalent to the date it was served with the complaint. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely hold a bench trial or continue the trial under OCGA § 9-16-12 (f). The court also held that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the second amended complaint adequately alleged the essential elements of theft by taking, as required by OCGA § 9-16-12 (a). The court reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion holding otherwise. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "SMITH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Dallas McCabe and Akhemu Dunston were convicted for felony murder and criminal attempt to sell marijuana in connection with the shooting death of Joseph Jackson. The crimes occurred on July 16, 2019, and the two were indicted on March 10, 2021, for malice murder, three counts of felony murder, and one count each of criminal attempt to commit robbery by force, criminal attempt to sell marijuana, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After a jury trial, McCabe and Dunston were found guilty on all counts except malice murder and aggravated assault. They were each sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and a concurrent five-year prison term for criminal attempt to sell marijuana.McCabe and Dunston appealed their convictions, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdicts and that the trial court erred by denying their motion for mistrial based on juror misconduct. McCabe separately contended that the trial court erred by denying his request to strike jurors for misconduct and that trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. Dunston separately contended that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury more fully on proximate cause and in failing to sever his trial from McCabe’s. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions. View "DUNSTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Nicholas Bernard Head, who was convicted for malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Quintavia Wade. Head argued that his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment were violated when the State read into evidence prior testimony given about the murder weapon by Emily Bagwell, the State’s firearms expert. He also claimed that the trial court committed plain error in allowing another firearms examiner, Kyle Wheelus, to testify as a “verifier” of Bagwell’s analysis about the bullet recovered in Wade’s autopsy.Head was initially indicted for malice murder and other crimes in connection with Wade’s death in 2018. That indictment was nolle prossed. In 2021, a Clarke County grand jury indicted Head for the same crimes. The jury acquitted Head of the counts involving Williams and found him guilty on all remaining counts. The trial court sentenced Head to serve life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder and consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling fifteen years for two of the weapons charges. Head filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.In the Supreme Court of Georgia, the court concluded that even if there was error with regard to the admission of Bagwell’s prior testimony about the murder weapon, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence against Head, including the testimony of two police officers who witnessed the shooting. The court also found no plain error in allowing Wheelus’s testimony as it was based on his own ballistics analysis. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "HEAD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Shanadore Harmon and Jermaz Lawson had an argument that escalated into a physical fight. During the altercation, Harmon fired a gun into the car Lawson was driving, killing Brittany Trantham, a passenger in the vehicle. Harmon was subsequently charged with malice murder of Trantham, aggravated assault of Lawson, and three firearms offenses. A Richmond County grand jury returned an indictment on all counts, and Harmon was found guilty by a jury trial.Harmon's conviction and sentencing were upheld by the trial court, despite multiple amendments to his motion for a new trial. Harmon appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of Trantham’s murder or the related firearms offenses, that the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict on the aggravated assault and firearm offense related to Lawson, and that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not raise a hearsay objection to the admission of Lawson’s recorded statement to police.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Harmon's convictions and sentence. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support each of Harmon’s convictions related to the murder of Trantham and the denial of his motion for directed verdict on the counts related to the assault of Lawson. The court also concluded that Harmon failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the admission of Lawson’s statement to police. The court noted that even without Lawson’s statement, the evidence against Harmon was still very strong, including testimony from two witnesses who saw Harmon stand behind Trantham’s car and then heard gunshots, as well as evidence that Harmon was found soon after the shooting with the gun that fired both the fatal bullet and all the bullets collected from the crime scene. View "HARMON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In July 2019, James Hill, III, was convicted of malice murder for the strangling death of Kelly Marshall. The evidence presented at trial showed that Hill had a history of physically abusing Marshall, threatened to kill her the evening before her death, was the last person to see her alive, attempted to flee law enforcement officers, and lied to law enforcement officers about his whereabouts on the night of Marshall's death. Hill appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motions for mistrial, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.Previously, a Newton County grand jury had indicted Hill for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. In July 2019, a jury found Hill guilty of all counts and he was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder. Hill filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court in February 2023.In the Supreme Court of Georgia, Hill's conviction was affirmed. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that Hill murdered Marshall. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hill’s motions for mistrial. Finally, the court rejected Hill's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that Hill failed to show that a motion to strike certain jurors for cause would have succeeded or that he was prejudiced by his counsel's actions. View "HILL v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, Lekievius Eleby was convicted for felony murder and other crimes related to a home invasion that resulted in the death of Danavan Bussey. The crimes occurred on December 5, 2010, and Eleby, along with Shameik Spinks and Bryce Smith, were indicted on multiple counts, including felony murder, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and tampering with evidence. Smith and Spinks pled guilty to their charges before trial and testified against Eleby. A jury found Eleby guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and armed robbery, among other sentences for the remaining counts.Before the Supreme Court of Georgia, Eleby challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the multiplicity of the indictment, the trial court's exclusion of evidence of past recollection recorded, the denial of his motion to suppress certain pretrial and trial identifications, and the sentences for the aggravated assaults, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possession offense. He also claimed that the prosecutor made improper and prejudicial comments in his closing argument and that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to make certain objections at trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated Eleby's convictions and sentences for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The court found that the remaining claims were either not preserved for appeal, without merit, or did not require reversal. The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Eleby's convictions and that the trial court did not err in denying Eleby's motion to suppress the pretrial and trial identifications. The court also found that the trial court did not err in sentencing Eleby for the separate assaults of Holmes and Johnson, as those counts did not merge with each other. However, the court agreed with Eleby that the trial court should have merged the offense of conspiracy to commit armed robbery with the conviction for felony murder predicated on armed robbery. View "ELEBY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves three defendants, Saturnino Andre Lopez-Cardona, Wilmer Mendez, and Gerson Suruy, who were charged with crimes related to the stabbing death of Lucas Andres Cruz-Guzman. Each defendant filed pretrial motions to suppress statements they made during separate interviews with the same police officer. The trial court granted their motions, concluding that the defendants did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive their rights under Miranda v. Arizona before they made the statements. The State appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court's conclusion regarding Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements was incorrect and should be reversed. However, the State conceded that the trial court properly suppressed Suruy’s statement.The trial court had found that the defendants did not audibly answer when asked if they understood their rights, and that neither defendant was asked if they waived their rights or wanted to talk to the police. The court also noted that there was evidence of potential mistakes in the translation of the Miranda rights, but did not make specific findings on this point.The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the trial court's orders suppressing Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements and remanded the case back to the trial court for further, specific findings. The court held that the trial court's findings were not sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful review of its rulings suppressing Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements. However, the court affirmed the trial court's order suppressing Suruy’s statement, deferring to the State’s discretion not to challenge that order. View "THE STATE v. LOPEZ-CARDONA" on Justia Law

The case revolves around William Jordan Ford, who was convicted for the shooting death of Travron Gill. Ford was indicted for malice murder, three counts of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer. The jury found Ford guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, among other sentences. Ford filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.Prior to the case reaching the Supreme Court of Georgia, Ford had been convicted in a lower court and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for malice murder and armed robbery. He also claimed that the trial court erred in allowing a forensic witness to testify about aspects of a blood test that the witness did not perform and that the court should have granted him a mistrial because the forensic witness was not timely disclosed as a witness.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Ford’s convictions. It also ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing the forensic witness to testify or in denying Ford’s mistrial motion. The court concluded that any error in admitting certain exhibits into evidence was harmless. The court also rejected Ford's argument that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence exhibits containing cellphone data extracted from four cellphones, stating that any error in their admission was harmless. View "FORD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law