Harold D. Melton

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved Kevin Ian Martin appealing his convictions for felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime after he stabbed and killed Peter Mwangi during an altercation at a New Year's Eve party in 2008. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding that Martin's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by playing his unredacted videotaped police statement (which included his invocation of counsel and a plea to God) and that other evidentiary rulings, such as admission of evidence about Martin's drinking, were not reversible error. The core reasoning applied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance, determined that invocation of counsel was not automatically inadmissible or prejudicial to the self-defense claim, and concluded that any potential errors were harmless in light of the overall evidence supporting the jury's verdict under Jackson v. Virginia.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Lester James Smith Jr., who was convicted after a jury trial of malice murder and five counts of attempting to elude a police officer, among other charges, stemming from the shooting death of Joel Andresen during a failed marijuana sale and a subsequent high-speed chase with multiple officers. Smith argued on appeal that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that a person is not justified in using force while attempting to commit a felony, citing precedent allowing justification defenses in certain felony contexts, and that he should not have been sentenced on five separate eluding counts. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury charge accurately reflected OCGA § 16-3-21(b)(2) because the underlying felony was inherently dangerous rather than a mere status offense, that the evidence supported the verdict, and that each eluding count was distinct due to encounters with separate police vehicles creating independent risks. The court also clarified that multiple convictions were permissible under the required evidence test and related statutes when different officers were involved.

criminal lawprocedure

In Curran v. Scharpf, a divorce case, the wife appealed after a jury trial, contending that the trial court erred by upholding the jury's finding that an IRA in the husband's name was his separate property not subject to equitable division. The Supreme Court of Georgia first addressed whether the wife had waived any error by not objecting to the form of the jury verdict, concluding that no waiver occurred because the challenge went to the substantive sufficiency of the evidence rather than the verdict's form. The court then affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury's determination must stand because at least some evidence supported classifying the IRA as the husband's separate property.

family lawprocedure

Martin Wheeler was convicted by a jury of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault for the strangling, beating, and stabbing death of his ex-girlfriend. On appeal, Wheeler argued that the evidence was insufficient, that similar transaction evidence from prior relationships should not have been admitted due to the passage of time, that certain jurors should have been struck for cause, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict under Jackson v. Virginia, that the prior incidents were admissible because their probative value outweighed any prejudice from their age given the pattern of abuse, that the jurors showed no fixed bias, and that counsel's choices not to object were reasonable strategic decisions.

criminal lawprocedure

In Adel v. State, Renato Adel was convicted by a jury of malice murder and theft by taking after his roommate Mesfin Asfaw was killed, dismembered, and burned, with Adel later found driving Asfaw's car and in possession of cleaning supplies. Adel appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, improper admission of certain testimony, an erroneous jury instruction on parties to a crime, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. It also ruled that any hearsay issues were either waived or harmless, that the jury charge was supported by the evidence, and that counsel's failure to object did not constitute ineffective assistance due to lack of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Elizabeth Ann Seiz and Thomas Seiz ended their marriage in 2010, and during proceedings the wife successfully added her husband's company, Seiz Joint Venture, LLC (SJV), as a party after he transferred valuable real property from a prior partnership to SJV. The trial court treated the husband's one-third interest in SJV as a marital asset and awarded the wife a one-sixth ownership interest entitling her to direct distributions from the company. SJV appealed, arguing it should not have been joined and that the decree improperly rewrote its operating agreement by forcing admission of the wife as a member. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that evidence of the property transfer in violation of a standing order justified adding SJV to afford complete relief and that the order required only financial distributions without mandating voting membership status.

family lawproperty

In Gresham-Green v. Mainones, a divorced wife appealed a final decree that awarded primary custody of the couple's children to the husband and ordered her to pay child support, claiming errors in the trial court's handling of a guardian ad litem report, temporary support during proceedings, consideration of incomes for the final support award, and sufficiency of findings on custody and visitation. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decisions. It held that any issue with the guardian's report was harmless because the guardian testified at the hearing and the court did not rely on the report. The temporary support order properly deviated from presumptive amounts by allocating costs like the mortgage to the husband, the final award reflected the parties' incomes from submitted worksheets, and the wife's challenges to findings were either forfeited or without merit since parties may submit draft orders.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a property dispute after a tax sale, in which JohnGalt Holdings claimed ownership of Atlanta real estate and the Boyds sued for trespass and ejectment while JohnGalt counterclaimed to quiet title. The trial court partially granted the quiet title claim, denied the Boyds' request to proceed in forma pauperis, and later dismissed their appeals for failing to timely pay costs. The Boyds appealed the dismissal order to the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeals, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the issues presented concerned only the procedural dismissal and pauper-status denial rather than the merits of any title-to-land claim.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Ernest Lee Walker’s appeal of his convictions for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and related charges after he stabbed his mother to death during an argument in front of his two minor nephews. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, rejecting Walker’s claim that incriminating statements he made to the state’s psychiatric expert should have been excluded. Walker had presented testimony from his own mental health expert about a possible delusional disorder, which under OCGA § 17-7-130.1 entitled the state to have its expert examine him and testify in rebuttal. The court reasoned that Walker’s prior Miranda warnings at arrest were sufficient, there was no constitutional requirement to repeat them or provide counsel during the examination, and his attorney had notice but declined to attend.

criminal lawprocedure

In Lytle v. State, a seventeen-year-old defendant was convicted by a jury of felony murder and related charges stemming from a 2006 armed robbery attempt at a trailer park that resulted in one woman's death and injuries to others. On appeal, Lytle challenged his conviction arguing he was denied conflict-free counsel due to shared public defenders and an investigator among co-defendants, that the trial court should have held a competency hearing, and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding his right to testify. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that no actual conflict of interest was demonstrated since Lytle was tried separately and no information was shared, that insufficient evidence was presented to raise a bona fide doubt about his competency, and that counsel's advice on testifying did not prejudice the defense.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sides v. Sides, a husband and wife who married in 1990 after signing a prenuptial agreement divorced nearly twenty years later, prompting a dispute over enforcement of that agreement. The trial court upheld the prenuptial agreement and incorporated it into the final divorce decree, awarding the wife only her car and $250,000 payable in installments. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that full financial disclosures had been made, the agreement was not unconscionable, and the growth of the couple's estate to roughly $8 million was a foreseeable circumstance that did not render enforcement unfair or unreasonable. The court also rejected the wife's procedural arguments concerning unresolved counterclaims and the entry of the final decree.

family lawproperty

In Rowden v. Rowden, a divorced couple disputed the award of primary physical custody of their two minor children to the wife and the determination of the husband's child support obligation. The trial court granted primary custody to the wife and set child support based on the guidelines, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed these decisions. The court reasoned that evidence supported the custody award as being in the children's best interests, given the wife's better plans for childcare and social activities, despite both parents being fit. Regarding child support, the court found that the wife's reduced income was not due to willful underemployment but rather to the collapse of her medical practice, and there was no requirement to abate support during visitation periods absent a showing that it served the children's best interests.

family law

In McFolley v. State, Derek McFolley was convicted by a jury of felony murder and cruelty to children after his six-month-old son died from head injuries while in his care; the evidence included medical findings of violent shaking and impact, prior rib fractures, and McFolley's statements to police admitting rough handling. McFolley appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to expert testimony from Dr. Randall Alexander on Shaken Baby Syndrome, which McFolley claimed improperly addressed the ultimate issue of whether the injuries resulted from abuse rather than accident. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the expert testimony did not opine on the ultimate issue of the perpetrator's identity and was admissible in any event because determining whether the described accidental falls could have caused the injuries required specialized medical and scientific knowledge beyond the jury's understanding.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Deiran Green, who was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and knife possession after Jeffrey Waldon died from a femoral artery wound inflicted by a knife Green held during a struggle in which Waldon head-butted him. The trial court granted Green immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2, finding he had acted in self-defense, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that OCGA § 16-3-21 justifies a person in threatening force without actually using it when they reasonably believe the threat is necessary to defend against another's imminent unlawful force, and the evidence showed Green held the knife for protection and to scare Waldon while reasonably fearing great bodily harm. The ruling noted that Green was not required to use deadly force to qualify for immunity and rejected the State's argument that he was engaged in a crime at the time.

criminal law