Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Jackson v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-04-24 · cited 1×
Rodger Jackson was convicted of felony murder and related offenses after evidence showed he shot and killed an unarmed victim during a gang confrontation. On appeal, Jackson raised a Batson challenge claiming the prosecution's peremptory strikes of two African-American jurors violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. The trial court required race-neutral explanations from the state, accepted the explanation for one juror as combative and reluctant while seating the other, and made no finding of racial motivation. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the trial court's assessment of discriminatory intent was entitled to deference and was not clearly erroneous.
criminal lawcivil rights
Thomas v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-04-24 · cited 4×
The case concerned James Tyrone Thomas, who was convicted of malice murder in 2001 following a bench trial; after his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, he filed an extraordinary motion in arrest of judgment in 2011 claiming that his indictment was defective for omitting the element of venue and that no underlying felony was charged to support the murder conviction. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion. The core reasoning was that a motion in arrest of judgment must be filed within the same term of court under OCGA § 17-9-61(b), rendering Thomas's filing more than a decade later untimely, and that the claim could not be properly construed as a habeas corpus petition (which must be filed in the county of incarceration) or an extraordinary motion for new trial (which requires a discretionary appeal application).
criminal lawprocedure
Crisler v. HAUGABOOK
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-04-24 · cited 12×
This case concerned whether a plaintiff could add a request for prejudgment interest to a complaint after the court of appeals directed entry of summary judgment in his favor on a claim for money had and received. The trial court awarded the interest despite the amendment being made without leave of court, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the award, holding that prejudgment interest on a liquidated demand requires only a demand before final judgment and an opportunity for the opposing party to contest it, which was provided here through opposition to the amendment and motion.
procedure
McNaughton v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-04-24 · cited 22×
Alec McNaughton was convicted of malice murder and aggravated assault for stabbing his wife 31 times in their home amid marital and financial difficulties. He appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing error in the admission of similar transaction evidence of prior domestic violence against his ex-wives and hearsay statements by the victim about past abuse. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the similar transactions were admissible to prove course of conduct and bent of mind due to their factual similarities, that the hearsay was either admissible under the necessity exception or harmless as cumulative, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict under Jackson v. Virginia.
criminal lawprocedure
Allen v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-03-19 · cited 46×
In Allen v. State, Mario Norval Allen was convicted of malice murder and related offenses after shooting his romantic partner, Kayleigh Henderson, in the face during an argument about their child; he admitted the shooting but claimed it occurred accidentally while defending himself from an unidentified armed man. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to reject the self-defense claim. It further ruled that Allen waived review of the voluntariness of his written statement by failing to object at trial and that the trial court's omission of jury instructions on transferred intent and transferred justification did not constitute plain error because it did not affect the trial's outcome.
criminal lawprocedure
Clay v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2012-03-19 · cited 117×
This interim appellate review in Clay v. State concerns a capital murder prosecution in which John David Clay was indicted for malice murder and false imprisonment arising from the 2007 death of Janice Swain. The Georgia Supreme Court examined the trial court's partial rulings on Clay's motion to exclude four statements made to law enforcement, his motion to suppress seized clothing, the admissibility of his prior convictions if he testifies, the admission of similar transaction evidence, and the handling of destroyed blood evidence. Applying Miranda standards, the court assessed whether Clay was in custody during each statement by evaluating the totality of circumstances, including his medical condition and interactions with officers, while also addressing Fourth Amendment issues with the clothing and evidentiary rules for prior acts. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its holdings on the statements and related evidence.
criminal lawprocedure