David E. Nahmias

The case concerns Henry Cook's appeal of a trial court ruling that he was not a resident of Randolph County and therefore not qualified to vote there, following a decision by the county Board of Registrars. Cook had challenged the registrars' determination under state election law, and the superior court upheld it after hearing evidence on his residency. The Supreme Court of Georgia determined it lacked jurisdiction because the matter was a voter qualification dispute not clearly tied to a specific election contest. Under the state constitution, the Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction only over "cases of election contest," which this case did not qualify as, leading to a transfer to the Court of Appeals without addressing the merits.

electionsprocedure

The case involved Mario Westbrook's conviction for malice murder and related crimes after he shot and killed Stacey Jefferies and wounded others during a dice game, claiming self-defense. On appeal, Westbrook challenged the admission of a witness's prior statement under the rule of completeness and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not presenting evidence of victims' prior violent acts. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the statement was properly admitted as relevant to rebut fabrication claims and address self-defense, any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence, and counsel was not ineffective because the additional evidence was not credible and unlikely to change the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether police officers' statements to a suspect that he could return home after questioning created a 'hope of benefit' under OCGA § 24-3-50 that would render his confession to child molestation inadmissible. The Georgia Supreme Court held that such statements do not make a confession involuntary unless they amount to a promise of no charges, reduced charges, or a reduced sentence. The officers told the 19-year-old suspect he would go home regardless of what he said (with an exception for killing someone), but made no promises about ultimate charging or sentencing decisions. After the suspect confessed, he was advised of his Miranda rights, waived them, and repeated his statements; the Court concluded these circumstances did not trigger the statutory prohibition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court's suppression order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a personal injury lawsuit by Lisa Krebs against Carmen McReynolds and General Motors after McReynolds's car struck the GM vehicle in which Krebs was a passenger. After Krebs settled with GM, the trial court dismissed McReynolds's cross-claims against GM for contribution and set-off, and entered judgment against McReynolds for the full jury award of over $1.2 million. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that OCGA § 51-12-33 mandates apportionment of damages among liable parties according to their percentages of fault even when the plaintiff bears no fault (eliminating joint liability and contribution), and that McReynolds's insurer had made a valid acceptance of the settlement demand rather than a counteroffer.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Moore v. State, Calvin Moore was convicted of malice murder in the death of Lucius Harris, Jr., based on evidence that he lived with the victim, was seen striking him, threatened to kill him on the night of the murder, and was linked by physical evidence and witness accounts to the location where the victim's body was found on railroad tracks. The Georgia Supreme Court determined that the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. However, the court held that the trial court erred by admitting similar transaction evidence regarding Moore's alleged involvement in a prior death without first conducting the hearing and making the on-the-record findings required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3(B). The judgment was therefore vacated and the case remanded for a proper Rule 31.3 hearing or, if necessary, a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In 1999, Demetric Andre Smith was convicted in Fulton County of felony murder and cruelty to a child for stabbing his girlfriend to death and was sentenced to life plus twenty years; this Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. More than ten years later, Smith filed a pro se motion in arrest of judgment, which the trial court denied on the merits without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the motion was untimely under OCGA § 17-9-61(b) because it was not filed during the term of court when the judgment was entered and that precedent requires affirmance of the denial of such untimely motions rather than reaching the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

In Walker v. State, the defendant was indicted on capital charges including murder and filed a statutory demand for speedy trial under OCGA § 17-7-171 during the August 2009 term of court. After two full terms passed without trial, she moved for discharge and acquittal, but the State filed a death penalty notice in the third term. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding that the statute's plain language requires more than two terms to expire before a defendant is entitled to automatic discharge, contrary to some prior dicta. This interpretation meant the death penalty notice reset the speedy trial clock, rendering the motion premature. The court also noted a potential waiver issue but did not reach it.

criminal lawprocedure

In Morgan v. State, appellant David Lee Morgan was convicted in 1994 of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault for the 1993 stabbing death of his former girlfriend Valencia Wright. Following an extraordinary 17-year delay in resolving his motion for new trial, the Georgia Supreme Court considered his appeal, which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia and determining that the jury charge properly permitted consideration of voluntary manslaughter without the sequencing error identified in Edge v. State, as it authorized a voluntary manslaughter verdict if the jury found the homicide was committed under sudden passion excluding malice.

criminal law

In Shank v. State, the appellant challenged his 1996 convictions for malice murder, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery arising from the bludgeoning death of Mark Garner and serious injury to Tracy Garner during a dispute over a marijuana debt at the Garners' home. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence, including the surviving victim's identification of Shank and physical evidence of cleanup, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court rejected claims of error regarding the trial court's handling of the jury's request for a recharge on reasonable doubt, finding invited error and tacit withdrawal of the request, and regarding the replay of testimony during deliberations, which was within the court's discretion. It also found no prejudice from the lengthy delay in post-conviction proceedings that would support an ineffective assistance claim.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves appellant Clifton Thomas appealing his convictions for malice murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and related firearm offenses stemming from robberies at two convenience stores in Athens, Georgia, on December 5, 2007. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in full, holding that the trial evidence—including eyewitness identifications, surveillance video, clothing matches, and statements by witnesses—was sufficient to allow a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. The court also rejected the claim that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the defendant's 1995 armed robberies as similar transactions, finding sufficient similarities and that the 12-year gap did not require exclusion given the defendant's ten-year incarceration in between. The opinion further upheld the qualification of a forensic artist as an expert witness.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over control of property belonging to Christ Church in Savannah after a majority faction of the congregation voted to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with another denomination, while a minority faction remained loyal. The Episcopal Diocese of Georgia and the loyal faction sued for a declaratory judgment that the property was held in trust for the Episcopal Church, and the trial court granted summary judgment in their favor under the neutral principles of law approach. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Georgia Supreme Court also affirmed, concluding that neutral principles showed the property was impressed with an implied trust for the Episcopal Church's benefit despite possible overreliance on certain statutes. The decision turned on the hierarchical structure of the denomination and the application of secular property and trust law without resolving underlying doctrinal disagreements.

propertyreligious liberty

The case concerned a dispute over ownership of property held by Timberridge Presbyterian Church, Inc., a local congregation that had affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA) through its predecessor denomination. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the property was subject to an express trust for the benefit of the PCUSA, represented by the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta. Applying the neutral principles of law approach from Jones v. Wolf, the court examined the PCUSA Book of Order (including sections G-8.0201, G-8.0301, and G-8.0601), the earlier PCUS trust provision adopted before reunification, the local church's participation in presbytery votes on those provisions and on reunification, and the hierarchical governance structure under which higher bodies hold review and control over lower ones. These documents and historical actions were found to establish the local church's agreement to hold its property in trust for the national denomination.

propertyreligious liberty

This case concerned whether a Georgia trial court could grant an out-of-time discretionary appeal from the denial of an extraordinary motion for new trial in a criminal case, as a remedy for defense counsel's failure to file a timely discretionary application. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that trial courts lack authority to grant such relief where it is not required by a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, and it affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the untimely application. The court reasoned that the 30-day statutory deadline for discretionary applications is jurisdictional and that OCGA § 5-6-39 does not authorize extensions for such filings. It further explained that defendants have no constitutional right to counsel for discretionary appeals after a direct appeal, so counsel's error does not excuse the missed deadline under agency principles. The ruling applies specifically to post-conviction discretionary review procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

Manuel Bonilla was convicted of the murder of Jose Reyes and the aggravated assault of Jose Cruz following a stabbing incident at a Christmas party in Gwinnett County in 1999. On appeal, Bonilla challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's admission of Reyes's hearsay statement, "He got me," made immediately after the stabbing. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the evidence was sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia standard for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further held that the statement was properly admitted under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule and did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it was not testimonial in nature.

criminal law

Tory Sears was convicted of felony murder in connection with the death of a 16-month-old girl in his care. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the required malicious intent and that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on an accident defense. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia standard for a rational jury to find malice beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further reasoned that the existing jury instructions on the state's burden to prove intent adequately covered the issues, so the absence of a separate accident instruction did not require reversal.

criminal law

In Thomas v. State, Roderick Thomas was convicted of malice murder, multiple counts of aggravated assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, and related offenses arising from a 2004 home invasion in which he and an accomplice forced entry into an apartment, robbed and terrorized the occupants at gunpoint, shot one victim who escaped, and killed another. On appeal, Thomas challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting four of his kidnapping convictions on the ground that the movement of victims lacked the required asportation and contended that two aggravated assault convictions should merge into his armed robbery convictions. The court determined that the movement satisfied the asportation element under the four-factor test from Garza v. State because it occurred after the robberies, was not inherent to them, and increased the victims' danger, but it agreed that one aggravated assault conviction merged with an armed robbery conviction and therefore vacated that conviction while affirming the judgment in all other respects.

criminal law

In Stephens v. State, the defendant was convicted of incest for sexually abusing his stepdaughter beginning when she was five years old and continuing until she was sixteen. The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed two issues: whether the trial court erred in giving a pattern jury instruction on prior consistent statements and whether the trial court properly amended the sentence to add special conditions of probation. The court held that the pattern instruction on prior consistent statements should not be given routinely because such statements are already admissible as substantive evidence, but the instruction was harmless and the conviction was affirmed. The court further held that the process used to impose the special probation conditions did not violate the defendant's rights, affirming the judgment on sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Artez Simmons's appeal of his murder conviction after a jury found him guilty as a party to the crime for his role in a 2007 beating that left Antoine Tolbert in a vegetative state, from which he died nine months later. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict under party liability because Simmons started the fight, encouraged the main assailant during the attack, and helped him flee afterward. The court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding no deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's decisions regarding witness interviews, cross-examination, or jury instructions on abandonment, as Simmons had not admitted to the underlying crime.

criminal lawprocedure

In Funes v. State, appellant Alex Funes was convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault, firearm possession, and street gang terrorism following a fatal shooting that occurred after a pool hall fight between rival gang members in Clayton County. Funes appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction, the effectiveness of his trial counsel, the admission of his post-arrest statement, and limits placed on his cross-examination of a witness. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to reject the justification defense, that the requested voluntary manslaughter charge was unsupported because the evidence showed fear rather than sudden irresistible passion, that counsel's performance was not deficient in the ways alleged, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the statement or cross-examination. The court relied on precedents such as Jackson v. Virginia for sufficiency review and Strickland v. Washington for ineffective assistance claims.

criminal lawguns

In Kent v. Kent, a husband appealed a divorce decree entered after a bench trial and challenged the trial court's denial of his post-trial motion to obtain an official transcript of the proceedings. The trial court had ruled that the wife was solely responsible for the court reporter's costs because the husband remained silent when asked about sharing those costs at the start of the trial, and it denied the husband's later request to pay for and receive the transcript. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred, reasoning that under OCGA § 5-6-41 and precedents such as Harrington v. Harrington and Giddings v. Giddings, a party's mere silence does not constitute an express refusal to participate in transcript costs unless the trial court makes a clear ruling to that effect at the outset of the proceedings; the court therefore reversed the denial of the transcript motion and remanded the case so the husband could obtain the transcript before pursuing his challenges to the divorce decree.

family lawprocedure