Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Supreme Court of Georgia
CRAFT v. THE STATE
Ozell Craft was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Marcus Sims. The incident occurred on September 9, 2019, when Craft, then 17, sold a pistol to his friend Khalil Rogers. Later, they met Sims to buy marijuana. Sims expressed interest in buying the pistol, but Rogers refused. Sims then forcibly took the pistol from Rogers, leading to a struggle. Craft shot Sims once in the chest, and after Sims fell to the ground, Craft shot him nine more times, resulting in Sims' death.A DeKalb County grand jury indicted Craft on multiple charges, including malice murder and felony murder. At trial, the jury found Craft guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Craft to life in prison for malice murder, with additional consecutive sentences for aggravated assault and firearm possession. The felony murder count was vacated by law, and one aggravated assault count should have merged with the malice murder count for sentencing purposes. Craft's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Craft's sole argument on appeal was that the trial court committed plain error by failing to provide an additional jury instruction on his defense of habitation theory of justification. The court found that although the trial court agreed to give the instruction, it was inadvertently omitted. However, the Supreme Court held that Craft failed to show that this omission likely affected the trial's outcome. The evidence against Craft was overwhelming, particularly regarding the nine additional shots fired after Sims was incapacitated. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Craft's convictions and sentences. View "CRAFT v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
PORTER v. THE STATE
James Porter was convicted of malice murder for the stabbing death of Deborah Miles. The crime occurred on October 8, 2017, in Statesboro, Georgia. Porter and Miles had a troubled relationship due to Porter’s alcohol abuse. On the morning of the murder, Miles failed to show up for work, prompting her co-worker and supervisor to check on her. They found her dead in her apartment later that day. Porter was seen near the crime scene and confessed to a friend that he had stabbed someone. He was arrested on October 9, 2017.A Bulloch County grand jury indicted Porter for malice murder on November 6, 2017. At his trial in April 2019, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Porter filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied in June 2024. He then filed a timely notice of appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction under the standard set by Jackson v. Virginia. The court found that Porter’s confession, corroborated by other evidence, was enough for a rational jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also ruled that the trial court did not err in refusing to give Porter’s requested jury instruction on the State’s burden to prove his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt, as the principle was adequately covered by other parts of the jury charge. View "PORTER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
SIMS v. THE STATE
Colton Jerrod Sims and Monte Glover were convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of DeCoby Barlow and the aggravated assault of Landon Brown. The incident occurred on December 8-9, 2018, following a dispute at a nightclub. Sims and his friend Colby Toles had a confrontation with Glover and co-defendant Jalon Edwards, which escalated into a gunfight outside the club. Barlow was fatally shot during the crossfire, and Brown, a security guard, was also assaulted.A Henry County grand jury indicted Sims, Glover, and Edwards on multiple charges, including malice murder and aggravated assault. Sims and Glover were tried together and found guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced them to life in prison for malice murder, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for other charges. Sims and Glover filed motions for new trials, which were denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Sims and Glover challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, claiming it did not support their convictions. Sims also raised four claims of trial court error and argued that his trial counsel was ineffective. Glover similarly argued ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, as eyewitness testimony and ballistics evidence confirmed their involvement in the gunfight. The court also found no merit in Sims' claims of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel, noting that strategic decisions by trial counsel were reasonable and did not prejudice the defendants.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and sentences of Sims and Glover, concluding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts and that there was no reversible error in the trial proceedings. View "SIMS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
SHORT v. THE STATE
Angelo Short was convicted of malice murder and related crimes, including burglary, theft, robbery, and obstruction of an officer, following the stabbing death of Peggy Gamble in November 2016. Short was sentenced to life in prison without parole plus 40 years. He appealed, challenging the trial court's admission of his incriminating statements made during custodial interviews with Columbus Police Department officers, arguing that his confession was induced by promises of benefit and threats of harm.The Muscogee County grand jury indicted Short on multiple charges, and he was tried and found guilty on all counts by a jury in November 2019. Short filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing. He then filed a timely notice of appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that Short's confession was admissible, as it was not induced by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury, as required by OCGA § 24-8-824. The court found that the officers' statements during the interviews did not amount to promises of reduced punishment or threats that would render the confession involuntary. The court also noted that any statements made by the officers about potential plea deals or sentencing were noncommittal and did not constitute improper inducements. Additionally, the court found no evidence that Short's fear of harm from other inmates was used by the officers to coerce his confession. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and the admissibility of Short's confession and the physical evidence obtained as a result. View "SHORT v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
THE STATE v. WIERSON
Michelle Wierson was charged with vehicular homicide after allegedly causing a fatal car accident while speeding. Two psychiatrists concluded that Wierson lacked the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong and suffered from a delusional compulsion at the time of the accident. Wierson filed a notice of intent to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. The State moved to introduce evidence that Wierson had stopped taking some of her psychiatric medications before the accident. The trial court granted the State's motion.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that evidence of medication non-compliance was not relevant to the statutory defenses of insanity. The court explained that the insanity-defense statutes do not mention how or why a defendant may have come to her mental state, only that she is not guilty if she has that mental state at the time of the offense. The court also held that evidence of medication non-compliance was not relevant to show Wierson’s intent to commit vehicular homicide and reckless driving.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine whether evidence that a defendant voluntarily contributed to her mental state is relevant to the statutory insanity defenses and whether the precedent set in Bailey v. State should be reconsidered. The court concluded that the plain language of the insanity-defense statutes does not provide any exception for voluntary inducement of the mental state. The court overruled Bailey, which had held that the insanity defenses are not available to a defendant who voluntarily induced the relevant mental state. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that evidence of Wierson’s medication non-compliance was not admissible to show that she voluntarily induced her lack of mental capacity or delusional compulsion. View "THE STATE v. WIERSON" on Justia Law
MCIVER v. THE STATE
Benjamin Clarence McIver was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Brandon Smith. The crimes occurred on April 16, 2020. McIver, along with Antavius Wilcox and James Parker, was reindicted on March 25, 2021. McIver and Wilcox faced multiple charges, including malice murder and armed robbery. McIver was tried separately and found guilty on all counts on June 30, 2022. He was sentenced to three consecutive life terms without parole for malice murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping, plus a consecutive five-year term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.McIver filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court on August 12, 2024. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. McIver argued that his trial counsel was ineffective, the trial court erred in not suppressing part of his custodial statement, and the evidence was insufficient to support his armed robbery conviction.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that McIver's trial counsel was not ineffective. The court determined that counsel's strategic decisions, including not presenting expert testimony on DNA evidence and not filing a pre-trial motion challenging the DNA testing, were reasonable. The court also found no plain error in the trial court's handling of McIver's custodial statement.However, the court agreed with McIver that the evidence was insufficient to support his armed robbery conviction. The court reversed the armed robbery conviction and remanded the case for resentencing, as the reversal affected the merger of the aggravated assault count and the consecutive nature of the kidnapping and firearm possession sentences. The court affirmed McIver's remaining convictions. View "MCIVER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
DOUGHERTY v. THE STATE
Robert Kyle Dougherty was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Trevorius Thomas. Dougherty and his co-indictee, Stephen Lober, planned to rob Thomas by luring him to an abandoned house under the pretense of a drug deal. During the encounter, Thomas was shot and killed. Dougherty and Lober then attempted to cover up the crime. Dougherty was found guilty of all charges except malice murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole, along with additional consecutive and concurrent prison terms for other charges.Dougherty's first appeal was dismissed because his pro se motion for a new trial was a legal nullity, and his appellate counsel's motion was untimely. His subsequent appeals were also dismissed due to unresolved issues with Count 4 and procedural errors. After the trial court entered an order of nolle prosequi for Count 4, Dougherty's third appeal was dismissed based on the law of the case doctrine. On remand, Dougherty filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which was granted, and he was resentenced to the same total time. His motion for a new trial was denied, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Dougherty's convictions for felony murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain text messages and in imposing Dougherty's sentence. The court rejected Dougherty's arguments regarding sentencing disparity and improper considerations during sentencing, concluding that the trial court's comments were reasonable inferences based on the evidence presented at trial. View "DOUGHERTY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law, Supreme Court of Georgia
WESTON v. THE STATE
Jaquan Dontae Weston was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of his father, Leroy Weston. The crimes occurred between March 5-6, 2018. A Terrell County grand jury indicted Weston in June 2018, and he was found guilty on all counts in an October 2019 jury trial. Weston was sentenced to life in prison without parole for malice murder, five years consecutive for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and twelve months concurrent for cruelty to children in the third degree. Weston filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. His appeal was initially stricken due to his appellate counsel's failure to file a brief, but it was later re-docketed after new counsel was appointed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Weston argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his malice murder conviction and claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, showed that Weston formed the intent and malice necessary for a malice murder conviction. The jury was entitled to find Weston guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on his actions and statements following his daughter's outcry about her grandfather.Weston also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his competency to stand trial, request a competency hearing, and object to certain evidence. However, these claims were not preserved for appellate review as they were not raised in his motion for a new trial. The court also found that Weston failed to show that his trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining an expert evaluation of his sanity at the time of the crimes, as there was no evidence presented to support this claim.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Weston's arguments. View "WESTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law
JOSEPH v. INGRAM
Antonio Ingram pleaded guilty to five felony counts, including armed robbery, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery, on September 30, 2016. The court found his plea was freely and voluntarily entered and entered a judgment of conviction on March 3, 2017, nunc pro tunc to September 30, 2016. Ingram was sentenced to concurrent 20-year prison terms, with 15 years to serve for each conviction. Ingram retained attorney David Jones to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was timely filed on October 27, 2016. However, there is no evidence that the trial court ruled on the motion, and Jones testified that the motion was dismissed without a hearing on March 3, 2017.The Superior Court of Richmond County granted in part Ingram’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, allowing him to pursue an out-of-time direct appeal. The court found that Jones rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform Ingram of his right to appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Ingram cross-appealed, arguing that the habeas court erred in denying him the remedy of setting aside his guilty plea and judgment of conviction.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the habeas court erred in treating the March 3 "Order to Enter Sentence" as an order denying Ingram’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record did not demonstrate that Ingram’s judgment of conviction was final for purposes of habeas review. The court vacated the habeas court’s order and remanded the case with directions to allow the parties to supplement the record and demonstrate whether Ingram’s judgment of conviction is final. If the motion to withdraw the guilty plea remains pending, the habeas petition should be dismissed as premature. If the judgment is final, the habeas court may reenter its previous order with that determination. The cross-appeal claims were deemed moot. View "JOSEPH v. INGRAM" on Justia Law
WALLACE v. THE STATE
Antonio Wallace, convicted of felony murder in 2011, sought original autopsy photographs for his pending habeas case. He requested these photographs under the Open Records Act, but the District Attorney refused. Wallace then filed a motion in the superior court where he was convicted, arguing that his request fit within exceptions for "medical purposes" or "public interest" under OCGA § 45-16-27 (d).The trial court found Wallace's arguments unconvincing and denied his motion. Wallace was convicted in Ware County, and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in 2020. In 2021, he filed a habeas corpus petition in Wheeler County. In 2024, he filed a motion for limited disclosure of original trial exhibits, specifically the autopsy photographs, to Dr. Jan Gorniak, citing the poor quality of the copies he had.The trial court held a hearing where Wallace's counsel argued that the photographs were necessary to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. The victim's sister opposed the disclosure. The trial court denied the motion, and Wallace appealed, raising the same arguments.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the disclosure of autopsy photographs was not for "medical purposes" as Wallace's intent was legal, not medical. Additionally, the court found that the disclosure was not "in the public interest" as the victim's family opposed it, and Wallace's arguments did not outweigh their privacy concerns. Thus, the District Attorney was not required to disclose the photographs. View "WALLACE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law