Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Larry Jenkins appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment against him and his plea in bar based upon the grounds that his retrial for two murders and related crimes would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy and the right to a speedy trial. Finding no violation of defendant's constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Jenkins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Eric Hassel was convicted of felony murder and other offenses in connection with the 2006 shooting death of David Lumpkin. Hassel appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing insufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and evidentiary errors. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hassel v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Mario Hanes was convicted by jury of malice murder and aggravated assault in connection with the shooting death of Monterrance Thomas and injury of Michael Stewart. On appeal, Hanes contended that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of similar transaction evidence from a 2009 traffic stop and improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence of a handgun recovered during Hanes's 2010 arrest for the crimes related to this matter. Furthermore, Hanes contended that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of the 2009 similar transaction evidence and by failing to request a limiting instruction or jury charge concerning his convicted felon status. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hanes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In December 2007, appellees Jordan and Renee Conley filed a product liability suit against appellant Ford Motor Company based on a single-vehicle rollover accident that occurred in 2006. The case went to trial in 2009. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford, and the Conleys did not file an appeal. Based on information about Ford's insurers that came to light more than a year later, the Conleys filed a motion for new trial in 2011. In early 2012, the trial court granted that motion. Ford filed an application for interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted. The Court of Appeals judges were divided evenly, so the case was transferred to the Supreme Court for decision. After careful consideration of the record and the contentions of the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court: "we reiterate the high hurdles that must be surmounted before an untimely, 'extraordinary' motion for new trial may be granted, but we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the Conleys met that burden under the particular circumstances of this case." View "Ford Motor Co. v. Conley" on Justia Law

Kenneth Dubose appealed his conviction and sentence for felony murder. He raised multiple alleged errors at trial to challenge his conviction. Finding none, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Dubose v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2005, David and Yvonne Barker divorced. Seven years later, David filed a petition in a Gwinnett County court to enforce certain provisions of the original decree by contempt and to modify certain other provisions of the original decree. The Gwinnett County court, however, dismissed his petition for want of personal jurisdiction, noting that Yvonne moved from Georgia several years ago, and therefore out of the court's jurisdiction. David appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that since 2010, Georgia law has provided that a Georgia court may obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident if she had "been subject to the exercise of jurisdiction of a court of this state which has resulted in an order of alimony, child custody, child support, equitable apportionment of debt, or equitable division of property if the action involves modification of such order and the moving party resides in this state or if the action involves enforcement of such order notwithstanding the domicile of the moving party." View "Barker v. Barker" on Justia Law

Appellant Waseem Daker was convicted by jury of malice murder, burglary, false imprisonment, aggravated battery and criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking. In 2012, appellant was sentenced to life in prison and a term of years. Since his conviction, appellant moved for a new trial and stated his intention to take additional legal action. During his incarceration, appellant contended he complained several times to prison officials about having no access to a law library or legal materials. In 2013, proceeding pro se, appellant attempted to file a petition for a writ of mandamus at Superior Court seeking to compel the Warden to provide him access to a law library. The trial court ordered the clerk not to allow filing of the mandamus petition because it concluded the petition was frivolous on its face. The trial court also denied appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellant filed an application for discretionary review and the Supreme Court granted iton the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying filing of applicant’s petition for mandamus. The Supreme Court found the trial court did err in denying appellant's petition. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Daker v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

Appellant Lamario Barge appealed his felony murder conviction for the shooting death of Steven Bass. On appeal to the Supreme Court, appellant argued: (1) the evidence presented against him was insufficient to support a felony murder charge; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction. View "Barge v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Melvin Washington, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted of murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of his bad character; and (3) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Washington v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Randall Spearman was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and concealing a death in connection with the killing of his wife, Adrienne. On appeal, he contended that the trial court: (1) should have merged the guilty verdict for aggravated assault based on his choking the victim into his felony murder conviction; (2) erred in denying his request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction; and (3) violated OCGA 17-8-57 by making an impermissible comment to the jury. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that only Appellant's first contention had merit. The Court vacated the trial court on that claim of error, and affirmed with respect to the other two. View "Spearman v. Georgia" on Justia Law