Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Reginald Johnson was convicted of felony murder and first-degree cruelty to children in connection with the 2016 death of his six-month-old daughter, Jordan. On appeal, Johnson contended that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence and strongly against the weight of the evidence; (3) the trial court erred by admitting certain photographs taken before and during the autopsy; (4) the trial court erred by limiting the defense’s cross-examination of Jordan’s mother; (5) the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony by the medical examiner; (6) the trial court erred by excluding testimony about the defense’s unsuccessful effort to procure a witness; and (7) the trial court committed plain error by failing to give a jury instruction on accident. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Johnson's conviction. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Demarcus Brinkley was charged with the kidnapping, attempted rape, and murder of Mariam Khalid Abdulrab. After the police identified him as a suspect for those crimes, Brinkley fled, leading officers in a high speed car chase. During the chase, Brinkley apparently told his mother on the phone that he did not want to pull over because he did not want to go back to prison. The trial court granted Brinkley’s pretrial motion to exclude this statement under OCGA § 24-4-403, and the State appealed. Because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court misapplied the Rule 403 standard, it vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further consideration under the correct standard. View "Georgia v. Brinkley" on Justia Law

Appellants Durell Muse, Darious Harris, and Darious’s Jujuane Harris, appealed their convictions following a joint trial for malice murder and other crimes stemming from the shooting death of Antonio Clements, the shooting of Clements’ girlfriend, Kendra Clopton, and the firing of shots that struck a vehicle occupied by Silento Bell and Yolanda Davis. On appeal, all Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support certain of their convictions; contended that the trial court violated the continuing witness rule by allowing the jury to watch surveillance videos in the jury room during deliberations; and claimed that the trial court violated certain of their rights when addressing notes from the jury. In addition, Muse and Darious contended the trial court erred by failing to exclude evidence extracted from Muse’s cell phone; Muse contended his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a hearsay objection to testimony from a State’s witness; Darious and Jujuane contended the trial court erred in failing to sever their trials; and Darious contended he was entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred in failing to exclude the testimony of a State’s witness and because the State represented during the motion for new trial proceedings that the record was incomplete. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in all three appeals. View "Muse, et al. v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Philip Pugh entered a plea of guilty but mentally ill to malice murder in connection with the shooting death of Vincent Newsome. On appeal, Pugh claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty but mentally ill plea for three reasons: (1) the trial court should have sua sponte conducted a competency hearing at the time of his guilty plea and that the failure to do so violated his procedural due process rights; (2) his substantive due process rights were violated by the trial court’s acceptance of the plea because Pugh was not competent to enter the plea and did not enter the plea voluntarily; and (3) he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in that plea counsel failed to request a competency hearing. The Georgia Supreme Court found that given Pugh’s repeated assertions at the time of the plea that he was being threatened and forced into entering the plea, the State failed to meet its burden to show that his plea was knowing and voluntary. The Court therefore reversed Pugh’s conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pugh v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Anthony Perryman-Henderson was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Tanaya Dunlap. On appeal, Perryman-Henderson contended: (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to “correct” the medical examiner’s testimony about the range the fatal shot was fired from; and (2) the trial court committed plain error by commenting on the State’s characterization of the medical examiner’s range-of-fire testimony in a way that could be taken as endorsement of it. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Perryman-Henderson's convictions. View "Perryman-Henderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rico King was convicted by jury of the 2018 malice murder of Michael Brooks and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony based on shooting Brooks. King argued on appeal: (1) that the trial court erroneously denied King’s motion for a new trial on the “general grounds”; (2) the trial court should not have allowed witness testimony and closing arguments about voluntary intoxication; (3) the trial court plainly erred by admitting character evidence about King’s alleged past alcohol and illegal drug use; and (4) that King received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed King's convictions. View "King v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Joshua Leonard was convicted by jury of malice murder and related crimes arising from the August 2010 shooting of Calvin Grimes, which resulted in Grimes’ death approximately ten months later from complications related to gunshot wounds. On appeal, Leonard argued the trial court erred in five respects and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of those errors. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leonard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Eric Greene was convicted of malice murder and theft by taking in connection with the strangling death of Sheila Bryant in January 2019. On appeal, Greene contended that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred: (1) by denying Greene’s motion to suppress his statement taken on February 18, 2019; (2) by admitting improper extrinsic evidence; (3) by admitting overly graphic autopsy photographs; (4) by allowing the State to present harmful and non-probative evidence from Greene’s cell phone showing that he conducted internet searches pertaining to rape; and (5) by failing to instruct the jury on mere presence and corroboration of a defendant’s statement. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Greene's convictions. View "Greene v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Phillip Blocker appealed his convictions for malice murder, participation in criminal street gang activity, and related offenses in connection with the 2010 shooting death of Eric Smith. Appellant argued on appeal: (1) insufficient evidence supported his conviction for participating in criminal street gang activity; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting as an excited utterance a hearsay statement that Appellant had just shot someone; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to object to the State’s closing argument that Appellant was guilty of participating in criminal street gang activity, (b) introducing photographic evidence depicting one of Appellant’s friends holding a gun and “throwing” possible gang signs, (c) failing to object to the admission of surveillance video capturing events surrounding the shooting, and (d) failing to request a jury charge informing the jury that Appellant’s out-of-court statements could not be believed without corroboration. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Blocker's convictions. View "Blocker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Matthew Copeland was convicted of felony murder and related crimes in connection with the 2012 shooting death of Carlos Glenn. Copeland contended that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his convictions and that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence was sufficient: the only disputed question was whether the shooting was justified, and the jury was entitled to discredit Copeland’s testimony that he shot Glenn in self-defense. And, although trial counsel admitted he relied on outdated precedent in seeking the admission of evidence about Glenn’s criminal convictions, the Court determined Copeland failed to establish that such evidence would have been admissible even under the applicable standard, so he has not shown the prejudice necessary to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance. The Court therefore affirmed his convictions and sentence. View "Copeland v. Georgia" on Justia Law