Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2021, a Fulton County grand jury indicted defendant Jerrion McKinney on various charges relating to his alleged participation in an "armed takeover" of an area in Atlanta, including twelve counts of violating Georgia’s Gang Act. The state sought to introduce evidence of McKinney's previous acts under evidence rule, OCGA § 24-4-418 (“Rule 418”), which allows for the admission of evidence of other acts listed in Georgia’s Gang Act in prosecutions under the same.The trial court ruled that only one of the three acts proffered by the state was admissible. The state appealed, arguing that the trial court incorrectly interpreted Rule 418 as requiring a nexus between the other act and an intent to further gang activity. The Court of Appeals agreed with the state, reversed the trial court's decision in part and remanded the case back to the trial court for reconsideration under OCGA § 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”), which governs the admissibility of relevant evidence.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, concluding that Rule 418 does not require a nexus between the other act and an intent to further gang activity. The Court clarified that while Rule 418 does not impose a nexus requirement, the admissibility of evidence under Rule 418 is still subject to the application of other rules of evidence, including Rule 403. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court to assess whether the other acts at issue should be excluded under Rule 403 or any other related rules. View "MCKINNEY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, Jamie Avila Reyes, the appellant, appealed his 15-year prison sentence for crimes including homicide by vehicle in the first degree and driving under the influence of alcohol. Reyes, an undocumented immigrant, contended that the trial court improperly considered his immigration status during sentencing, violating his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Reyes also argued that OCGA § 17-10-1.3, a Georgia statute that allows a trial court to consider potential deportation when determining whether to probate a convicted person's sentence, is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him.The Supreme Court of Georgia held that OCGA § 17-10-1.3 is constitutional. The court found that the statute survived rational basis review because it bears a rational relationship to the legitimate governmental interest in ensuring the complete execution of judicial sentences. The court also held that the trial court did not violate Reyes' due process or equal protection rights when it applied the statute and declined to probate any portion of his sentence due to his impending deportation. The court noted that there was no evidence the trial court based its sentence on discriminatory animus towards undocumented noncitizens. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "REYES v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of Georgia, the appellant, Belinda Lopez, was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in relation to the shooting death of her husband, Noel Lopez. The court presented evidence of a night out involving Belinda, Noel, and Belinda’s friend Angelica Juarez, which culminated in Noel being shot in the head. Belinda called 911 to report the incident. Throughout her interviews with investigators, Belinda maintained that she was defending herself from Noel's attack when the gun accidentally discharged. However, her account of the incident shifted over time.In her appeal, Belinda contended that the evidence presented at her trial was insufficient to support her convictions and that her trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. She claimed that the State failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt her theories of self-defense and accident, and alternatively, suggested that Juarez may have shot Noel.The court rejected Belinda's claims, affirming that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support her convictions. The court found that Belinda's shifting accounts of the incident, combined with expert testimony and physical evidence, allowed the jury to conclude that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder and the related firearm possession count.Regarding Belinda's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that her trial counsel's decision not to pursue requests for certain jury instructions and his failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument did not constitute deficient performance. The court concluded that Belinda failed to establish that her trial counsel's performance was deficient or that she suffered prejudice as a result of his actions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "LOPEZ v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In 2024, the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the convictions of Demarcus Deshawn Blash for malice murder and other offenses related to the shooting deaths of Jain Marie Williams and Wendell Everett Williams. Blash challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of his motion for a new trial, the introduction of his jail phone call recordings, and the expert testimony interpreting gang language used in those calls. He also questioned the legality of his sentencing process.The crimes were committed in 2018, and Blash was indicted along with three co-defendants. Following a trial in 2021, Blash was found guilty of all counts except one count of theft. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murders and additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for other charges.Blash appealed his convictions and sentences, but the Supreme Court of Georgia found that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to uphold the convictions. The court ruled that the trial court had properly denied Blash's motion for a new trial and did not err in allowing the introduction of jail call recordings and expert testimony interpreting gang language.Furthermore, Blash's argument that his sentencing was not conducted under Georgia law was dismissed since the sentences fell within the statutory punishment ranges. However, the court did vacate the sentences for burglary and one count of theft by taking because these counts should have merged with home invasion and armed robbery, respectively. View "BLASH V THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this Georgia Supreme Court case, the defendant, Darnell Rene Floyd, was convicted of felony murder predicated on possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and other related charges in connection to the shooting death of Telmo Ortiz. Floyd argued he was acting in self-defense during the incident. On appeal, Floyd's main contention was that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective due to their handling of the interplay between self-defense and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with Floyd and reversed his conviction. The Court concluded that Floyd's trial counsel failed to request a jury instruction about self-defense under OCGA § 16-11-138, which provides that self-defense can be an absolute defense for a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Additionally, the court determined Floyd's trial counsel didn't clearly explain that self-defense applied to felony murder based on felon-in-possession and agreed with the trial court's response to the jury's question, which didn't clarify the application of self-defense to felony murder and felon-in-possession.The court held that these failures constituted deficient performance by counsel and resulted in prejudice to Floyd's case. However, since the evidence against Floyd was constitutionally sufficient to authorize the conviction, he may be retried. The court also reversed Floyd's conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, as it was only supported by the reversed felony murder conviction. View "FLOYD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In 2019, co-defendants Mark Kirkland and Kendrick Ogletree were found guilty of numerous offenses, including malice murder, related to the arson-related deaths of Deangelo Barbary and Debra Morris. The pair were indicted on charges of murder, felony murder, and arson in the first degree, with Ogletree also charged with conspiracy to commit arson and criminal solicitation. Both defendants contend that the trial court erred in various ways, including by admitting improper character evidence. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that Kirkland failed to prove that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Ogletree’s convictions. As such, the court affirmed both Kirkland’s and Ogletree’s convictions. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court erred in its final instruction to the jury about the use of admitted evidence of other acts, but concluded that the error did not affect the outcome of the proceedings given the strong evidence of guilt presented by the State. View "KIRKLAND v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Donald Berry Green appealed his sentence for felony murder and aggravated assault related to the shooting death of Andre Winter. He entered a guilty plea, but years later, began filing motions for an out-of-time appeal. Green argued that his guilty plea was involuntary and unintelligent because he wasn't expressly advised on the record of his right against self-incrimination, one of the three specific rights listed in "Boykin v. Alabama" (1969) that a defendant waives when entering a guilty plea. The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the record showed Green's plea was voluntary and intelligent, despite the absence of an express advisement of his right against self-incrimination. The Court overruled its previous decisions that adopted a "three Boykin rights" approach, which automatically reversed a guilty plea if the record didn't show the defendant was expressly informed about all three rights listed in "Boykin v. Alabama". The Court held that a guilty plea is valid if the record shows it was voluntary and intelligent, regardless of whether all three rights were explicitly conveyed to the defendant. Therefore, the Court affirmed Green's convictions. View "GREEN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In this case, appellant Austin Levi Payne appealed his convictions for felony murder and other crimes related to the death of one-year-old Journey Cowart. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Payne's convictions. The court reasoned that since Payne and the victim's mother, Brandy Boyd, were the only caretakers of the child during the time the fatal injuries were inflicted, the jury could reasonably conclude that either Payne, Boyd, or both were responsible for the injuries. The court also refuted Payne's arguments regarding the exclusion of evidence about Boyd's drug use and the failure to give a requested jury charge on grave suspicion. Finally, the court dismissed Payne's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that Payne failed to show that his trial counsel performed deficiently. View "PAYNE v. STATE" on Justia Law

In the case decided by the Supreme Court of Georgia, the appellant, Karonta Morrell, appealed his convictions related to the shooting death of Jonathan Lang. The appellant was found guilty of multiple charges including malice murder, felony murder, criminal attempt to murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with several consecutive prison terms for other counts.On appeal, Morrell argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the record contained several deficiencies, preventing a full and fair appellate review. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Morrell’s malice murder conviction. The court found that the jury could easily find that Morrell was present during the crime, as several eyewitnesses placed him there and his own statements also placed him there. Morrell’s argument that his actions were justified or that, at most, he was guilty only of voluntary manslaughter based on provocation was dismissed. The court explained that fighting is not the type of provocation that would support a voluntary manslaughter jury charge.Regarding Morrell's claim of an incomplete trial record, the court found no merit as all transcripts and exhibits at issue were included in the appellate record. Morrell's claim that periodic “indiscernible” notations made the record “incomplete” was dismissed as he cited no authority requiring court reporters to transcribe the contents of recordings admitted as exhibits. Therefore, the court held that Morrell failed to show how any deficiencies in the record have harmed him. View "MORRELL v. STATE" on Justia Law

In the case under review, the appellant, David Wallace Lee, was convicted of two counts of malice murder related to the shooting deaths of Meghan Bowen and James Harden. The appellant argued on several grounds, including insufficiency of evidence, trial court errors, and ineffective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions. The evidence demonstrated a history of abuse, jealousy, and threats by the appellant towards Bowen, which escalated in the months leading up to the murders. The appellant's claims of trial court errors were also rejected, as the court found no abuse of discretion in the admission of testimony regarding the appellant's possession of a gun similar to the murder weapon and found no actual conflict of interest necessitating the disqualification of an assistant district attorney.Further, the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also rejected. The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was professionally deficient and that he suffered prejudice as a result.Therefore, the court affirmed the appellant's convictions and sentence. View "LEE v. STATE" on Justia Law