P. Harris Hines

In Jordan v. Moses, two attorneys formed a partnership for an indefinite term in 2003; one partner sought to dissolve it in 2006 while the other did not consent, leading the first partner to file a declaratory judgment action and the second to counterclaim for wrongful dissolution of the partnership. The trial court granted summary judgment to the dissolving partner on the counterclaim, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and determined that the Court of Appeals had applied an incorrect legal standard for the tort of wrongful dissolution by requiring an attempt to appropriate only the "new prosperity" of the partnership. Instead, the Court clarified that under its precedent in Wilensky v. Blalock, the claim can rest on bad-faith appropriation of the partnership's existing or continuing prosperity without adequate compensation, and it reversed and remanded for analysis under that standard.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over enforcement of a divorce settlement agreement requiring the husband to sell the marital residence or refinance it after two years and divide the net proceeds or equity equally with the wife. The trial court found the husband in contempt for failing to refinance, ordered him to pay down the mortgage using other assets, and required him to indemnify the wife against any deficiency. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the contempt finding, as evidence showed the husband's voluntary new debts prevented compliance, but reversed portions of the order that assigned all deficiency risk to the husband or mandated liquidation of assets to pay down the mortgage. The Court reasoned that while a trial court may interpret and enforce a decree in contempt proceedings, it lacks authority to modify the underlying agreement by altering the equal-division terms or imposing new obligations not contemplated by the parties.

family lawprocedure

Nathaniel Scott was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony after fatally shooting Edward Nurse at a gas station in Atlanta. On appeal, Scott raised multiple challenges including insufficient evidence, improper prosecutorial statements in closing argument, errors in jury instructions on alibi and aggravated assault, an improper Allen charge, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, that any unobjected-to arguments were waived and fell within permissible bounds, that the jury instructions were adequate, and that the remaining claims lacked merit. The opinion addresses procedural defaults and the scope of prosecutorial latitude in summation without reversing on any ground.

criminal lawguns

This case involved the arrest of Haley Hawkins for drug-related crimes after she exchanged text messages with an undercover officer. The arresting officer searched her cell phone without a warrant and retrieved the text messages, which Hawkins sought to suppress. The court decided that the search was lawful as incident to arrest. The reasoning was that a cell phone is analogous to a traditional container that can be searched for evidence relevant to the crime, and the search was appropriately limited to the text messages in question.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved elected members of the Warren County Board of Education who were removed from office by the Governor after an administrative hearing found they violated state ethics rules under OCGA § 45-10-3. The superior court denied their petition for review, and they appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot for one appellant whose term had expired but reversed the denial for the others, holding that OCGA § 45-10-3 applies only to boards created by general statute and not to county boards of education, which are established by the state constitution under Article VIII, Section V, Paragraph II; therefore, the Governor lacked authority under OCGA § 45-10-4 to remove them.

electionsprocedure

In Barker v. Barrow, a criminal defendant sought habeas corpus relief after his 1996 recidivist sentence of life without parole, arguing that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate the constitutional validity of his prior guilty pleas, which the State used for sentencing enhancement under OCGA §§ 16-13-30(d) and 17-10-7(c). The habeas court initially granted relief on some prior convictions but the Georgia Supreme Court remanded for consideration of procedural default and ineffectiveness claims under Strickland v. Washington. On remand, the habeas court denied relief, finding no deficient performance by counsel, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court reasoned that counsel had no absolute duty to obtain and review transcripts of all prior plea proceedings, that counsel reasonably investigated the convictions based on available information and experience with the sentencing court, and that Barker failed to overcome the presumption of reasonable professional conduct. The topics are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

Justin Wayne Chapman was convicted of felony murder while committing arson after a fire at a duplex in Haralson County killed resident Alice Jackson. He appealed solely on the ground that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inadequately preparing for trial, failing to challenge key evidence such as the use of an accelerant, and not pursuing certain exculpatory matters. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that many of Chapman's ineffectiveness claims were abandoned and that he failed to show both deficient performance by counsel and a reasonable probability of a different outcome under the Strickland standard. The court also upheld the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

Melvin Lee Johnson was indicted on multiple counts including malice murder and entered a negotiated guilty plea to malice murder, resulting in a life sentence. He later filed a motion in arrest of judgment asserting that the indictment failed to allege venue as to each charge. The trial court denied the motion, and Johnson appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial because the motion was not filed during the same term of court as the judgment, making it untimely under OCGA § 17-9-61. The court reasoned that an untimely motion limits the trial court's authority to grant relief, requiring affirmance regardless of the underlying claim.

criminal lawprocedure

In Johnson v. State, Malcolm Taurean Johnson appealed his convictions for malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony stemming from a fatal shooting during a marijuana transaction in Gwinnett County. Johnson argued that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising him not to testify, failing to secure a jury instruction on justification, inadequately cross-examining witnesses about potential deals, and other related deficiencies. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions, concluding that Johnson failed to satisfy the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington by demonstrating deficient performance or resulting prejudice, as the evidence supported the verdicts and Johnson's claims lacked substantiation in the record.

criminal law

In Higgenbottom v. State, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment for malice murder, felony murder, cruelty to children, and aggravated battery arising from a 1992 infant death, as well as the denial of his speedy trial claim under the state and federal constitutions; he also challenged the non-murder counts as time-barred by statutes of limitation. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings in full. It applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test to the speedy trial issue after finding the delay presumptively prejudicial, weighing the length of delay, reasons for delay (including a new medical examiner's report in 2007), the defendant's assertions of his rights, and lack of prejudice to conclude there was no violation. On the limitation periods, the court held that the crimes remained unknown until the revised 2007 autopsy opinion, tolling the statutes under OCGA § 17-3-2(2).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a divorce between Lynda Harris and Robert Snelgrove, the division of marital property, child support obligations, and custody of their minor child, with the paternal grandparents intervening to seek custody. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the superior court's decree granting sole legal and physical custody to the grandparents, ordering Harris to pay $780 monthly and Snelgrove $287 monthly in child support, and requiring Harris to pay Snelgrove $20,000 as equitable division of the marital estate. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer physical or emotional harm if placed with either biological parent, based on testimony, the guardian ad litem's investigation, and documentary evidence. It upheld the handling of the guardian ad litem's cross-examination as limited to facts and best-interest recommendations rather than legal standards, and determined that Snelgrove's contributions to the residence supported the property award under equitable division principles.

family lawproperty

Randy Rogers was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and burglary after evidence showed he participated in a home invasion in which Gregory Drones was fatally shot and Barbara Drones was assaulted at gunpoint; DNA linked Rogers to blood at the scene, and he sought treatment for a gunshot wound hours later. On appeal, Rogers challenged the admission of statements he made to police while hospitalized in pain and the admission of a recorded jailhouse phone call in which he discussed the case with an attorney. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the hospital statements were voluntary because Rogers was lucid and there was no evidence medication or pain rendered them involuntary, and that the recorded conversation was not protected by attorney-client privilege because it was not confidential. The opinion addresses evidentiary rulings under state law but does not reach the underlying facts of guilt beyond the procedural challenges raised.

criminal lawprocedure

In Williams v. State, the defendant appealed the denial of his pre-trial motion to dismiss charges from a double murder indictment on grounds that a four-year delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and Georgia Constitution. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, applying the Barker v. Wingo balancing test after finding the delay presumptively prejudicial. It weighed the length of the delay from indictment, the reasons including case complexity, heavy dockets, and defense actions like requesting continuances and counsel changes, the timing of the speedy-trial assertion, and lack of demonstrated prejudice from unavailable witnesses. The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying discharge and acquittal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nations v. State, David William Nations appealed his convictions for malice murder and aggravated battery stemming from a 2007 shooting incident in which he fatally shot Jason Cothren and wounded Claude Cothren during an argument involving alcohol and a dispute over a work job. Nations argued that his due process rights were violated by the State's use of perjured testimony from a witness that was not disclosed in time and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no evidence that perjury had actually occurred or that the witness had been convicted of perjury, and noting that other eyewitness testimony supported the verdicts even without the challenged statements. The court also rejected the ineffective assistance claims after examining each allegation regarding counsel's performance and concluding that no prejudice resulted. The decision relied on standards from cases like Jackson v. Virginia for sufficiency of evidence and OCGA § 17-1-4 for setting aside judgments based on perjury.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a quiet title action in which Josephine Bailey sought to establish ownership of a parcel of land adjacent to her home in Coweta County, Georgia, claiming title either through a 1974 warranty deed or by adverse possession for over 20 years. The superior court, adopting the special master's report, ruled that fee simple title belongs to Derether Moten, who holds record title to the neighboring property. The court reasoned that the metes and bounds description in Bailey's deed and the referenced plat clearly excluded the disputed property, and her activities such as occasional mowing, clearing vegetation, and using the land for family gatherings did not meet the strict requirements for prescriptive title, including public, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession. Therefore, the judgment vesting title in Moten was affirmed.

property

Deontarius Otis Slaughter was convicted of felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Jarvis Beasley. He appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the jury panel based on an overheard comment during voir dire and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the trial court had properly questioned the relevant prospective jurors individually and found no inherent prejudice to the panel, and that the evidence including eyewitness accounts, cell phone records, vehicle identification, and post-incident statements was sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia standard to support the verdicts.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim by Mulligan after a 2005 work-related back injury, followed by a 2007 home fall and subsequent surgery; the authorized treating physician requested pre-authorization via Board Form WC-205, but the insurer Selective failed to respond timely under Board Rule 205 and refused payment, leading to disputes over whether the surgery was compensable and whether Rule 205 validly imposed payment obligations. The administrative law judge and Board denied benefits, the superior court affirmed on the change-in-condition issue but reversed on Rule 205 to require payment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of benefits while invalidating the relevant part of Rule 205 as improper substantive rulemaking that shifted the burden of proving compensability. On certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the Board acted within its statutory authority under OCGA § 34-9-60(a) in promulgating Rule 205 as a procedural rule, but affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment that Selective was not required to pay for the surgery. The core reasoning was that the Board's rule-making power is limited to rules consistent with the Workers' Compensation Act and does not extend to altering substantive burdens of proof or creating presumptions of compensability, while noting that untimely responses could still trigger civil penalties or attorney fees rather than automatic payment for non-compensable treatment.

labor & employmentprocedurehealthcare

This case is an appeal by the warden from a habeas court's grant of relief to defendant Randall Brannen, who had challenged his probation revocation and re-adjudication on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court found counsel deficient for not investigating Brannen's mental health history and concluded there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome at the hearing. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to pursue mental health issues based on Brannen's assurances, family input, discussions with doctors, and an agreement with the State, which did not constitute professional deficiency under Strickland v. Washington. The Court further found that Brannen failed to present evidence showing actual prejudice from the alleged deficiency, as the habeas court's conclusions were based on speculation rather than specific proof of a different result.

criminal lawprocedure

Cornelius White was convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting deaths of Jose Luis-Aguiero Ramirez and Elvis Cabrera Gonzales. White appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on party to a crime despite his solo indictment, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain hearsay testimony and to impeach a witness. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to support the verdicts, that Georgia law permits party-to-a-crime instructions without naming co-perpetrators in the indictment when the evidence supports it, and that counsel's performance was not deficient or prejudicial because the challenged evidence was admissible and no prejudice resulted from the alleged omissions.

criminal lawprocedure

Maurice Cawthon appealed his conviction for felony murder in the beating death of Bernard Sims, a homeless man found with severe blunt-force injuries at a casual labor assembly point. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction, ruling that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. The court held that testimony from three witnesses about prior difficulties between Cawthon and Sims was admissible either because Cawthon adopted a statement showing motive and intent, it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, or objections were waived at trial. Additional claims regarding jury instructions were rejected as not constituting plain error affecting substantial rights.

criminal lawprocedure