Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
DISHAROON v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-05-07 · cited 23×
In Disharoon v. State, defendants were convicted of sex offenses involving a minor based partly on DNA evidence recovered from their home. At trial, a DNA expert testified about test results after personally performing most steps of the analysis but not being present when another technician loaded samples into an instrument for one step; the defendants objected that this testimony was inadmissible hearsay violating the Confrontation Clause under Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the expert's substantial personal participation as supervisor and analyst distinguished the case from Bullcoming's surrogate testimony by a witness with no involvement in the testing. The court reasoned that the circumstances fell outside the holdings of Bullcoming and prior Georgia precedent remained consistent with U.S. Supreme Court guidance on experts with a direct connection to the forensic work.
criminal lawprocedure
Hughes v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-05-07 · cited 1×
The case concerned the proper venue for a habeas corpus petition filed by Jermaine Hughes, who was serving a federal sentence in Fulton County and seeking to challenge prior Cobb County drug and misdemeanor convictions that enhanced his federal sentence. The Superior Court of Cobb County ruled that venue belonged in Fulton County because Hughes was incarcerated there. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the 2004 amendment to OCGA § 9-14-43, when a federal prisoner challenges state convictions, the petition must be filed in the superior court of the county where those convictions were imposed. The Court explained that the statute's plain language controls and supersedes earlier contrary precedents. As a result, venue was proper in Cobb County.
criminal lawprocedure
Jackson v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-04-24 · cited 19×
The case involved Cecil Jackson, Jr.'s convictions for malice murder, aggravated assault, and firearm possession after he shot and killed John Tucker following an argument at a party in 1998. Jackson appealed, arguing that the admission of a deceased co-defendant's statement to police violated his rights under Crawford v. Washington. The court determined that the statement was testimonial and improperly admitted without an opportunity for cross-examination. However, the error was deemed harmless because the statement was cumulative of other evidence, including Jackson's own taped admission and testimony from another witness describing the argument and shooting. The court therefore affirmed the convictions.
criminal lawprocedure
Kendrick v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-04-24 · cited 13×
The case involved Michael Kendrick's appeal following his convictions for felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, arising from a 2001 shooting during an altercation at an apartment complex in Fulton County. After a jury trial in which evidence showed Kendrick shot an unarmed victim multiple times, including while the victim lay on the ground, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts under Jackson v. Virginia and rejected claims that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense, reasoning that the defendant's admitted conduct amounted to aggravated assault rather than reckless conduct. The court further determined that the jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter were adequate when viewed as a whole and that other asserted errors regarding the verdict form and counsel did not warrant reversal.
criminal lawguns
Muhammad v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-04-24 · cited 9×
Hakim Muhammad was convicted by a jury of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence for strangling his estranged wife Shelia in her rental home. Muhammad appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred in admitting similar transaction evidence of his prior domestic violence and arson against another woman. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence, including eyewitness accounts, DNA on the ribbon used to strangle the victim, Muhammad's admissions, and his possession of the victim's wedding ring, was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further ruled that the prior acts were sufficiently similar in showing a pattern of escalating violence against romantic partners to be admissible as similar transaction evidence to prove bent of mind or course of conduct.
criminal lawprocedure
Manzano v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-04-24 · cited 4×
In Manzano v. State, Jesus Manzano was convicted of felony murder after a jury trial for the shooting death of his wife, Claudia Rodriguez, though he was acquitted of malice murder. Manzano appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence, including Manzano's statements admitting to killing his wife and the circumstances of the shooting, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt under the standard from Jackson v. Virginia.
criminal law