Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether physicians employed as faculty members at the Medical College of Georgia ("MCG") were entitled to official immunity in treating a patient at MCG's Children's Medical Center. Plaintiffs-Appellees Kenneth Jones and Clara Ramon filed a medical malpractice action against Appellants Prem Singh Shekhawat, M.D. and Wayne Mathews, M.D., along with other defendants, arising from treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' child at the Center in 2003. The trial court granted summary judgment to both Appellants, concluding that they were entitled to official immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Appellants, in treating Plaintiffs' child, were acting within the scope of their employment with the State, using the Supreme Court's holding in "Keenan v. Plouffe," (482 SE2d 253 (1997)). After further review, the Supreme Court concluded that "Keenan" should have been overruled, because it conflated the standard for official immunity with that for sovereign immunity. Utilizing the proper analysis, the Court held that Appellants were entitled to official immunity because they were acting within the scope of their state employment in rendering the medical care at issue. View "Shekhawat v. Jones " on Justia Law

Brothers-defendants Gerardo and Eduardo Sifuentes were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with a shooting that killed one person and injured two others. Both moved for a new trial, and both were denied. In addition, Gerardo challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for pretrial immunity based on self-defense. Upon review of the cases, the Supreme Court found no error, except in Eduardo's conviction for theft by taking; the Court found that count was not supported by the evidence, and therefore his convictions on two additional counts predicated on the theft by taking were in error too. The Court affirmed the judgment against Gerardo in its entirety, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment against Eduardo. View "Sifuentes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Steven George Stratacos challenged four of his convictions for felony theft by deception based on his deceitful promises to perform various construction services. He claimed that the evidence presented at trial showed he provided some services but did not establish their value, and thus the evidence did not support the jury's guilty verdicts. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented was sufficient to support appellant's felony convictions, but insufficient to support even a misdemeanor conviction as to one. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. View "Statacos v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellee Johnnie Worsley was tried by jury and convicted of the rape and murder of his seventeen-year-old stepdaughter, Yameika Bell, and the murder of his wife, Flora Worsley. For each murder, Appellee was sentenced to death. Nearly fourteen years later, the trial court granted Appellee a new trial, finding that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the sentencing phase of his 1998 trial. The State appealed. Finding the trial court granted the new trial in error, the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Appellee's death sentences. View "Georgia v. Worsley" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Gabriel Evans was found guilty of kidnapping with bodily injury, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in connection with the beating of Aretha Perkins. Evans' convictions were upheld on appeal. After filing an unsuccessful habeas petition to challenge his conviction in 2001, Evans filed a second habeas petition in 2009, seeking relief based on the Supreme Court's then-controlling decision in "Garza v. State," which established new factors for assessing the asportation element as required for kidnapping. Analyzing the Garza factors, the habeas court granted relief, finding that the duration of the movement of the victim was short, the movement was incidental to the aggravated assault, the movement appeared to be an inherent part of the aggravated assault, and the movement did not place the victim in more danger than she was already in at that point, and set aside the conviction and sentence for kidnapping with bodily injury. The warden appealed. Finding no error in the second habeas court's analysis, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sellars v. Evans" on Justia Law

Jehrod Romer appealed his murder and firearm possession convictions in connection with the shooting death of 16-year-old Quantavia Hill. Appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred in allowing his brother's testimony to be impeached with evidence that the brother refused to give a statement to the police on the day after the shooting, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Romer v. Georgia" on Justia Law

David Robert Norton appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, arson, criminal attempt to commit the crime of concealing the death of another, possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the shooting death of Amy Ayers. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his convictions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Norton v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Todd McNair was charged and convicted by jury of identity fraud for the theft and use of the victim's credit card. Prior to being sentenced, appellant argued that the rule of lenity should be applied such that he would be sentenced for committing financial transaction card theft a crime for which he was not charged or convicted, but which has a lesser penalty than identity fraud. The trial court rejected this argument and sentenced appellant as a recidivist to 10 years (five years to serve). The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the rule of lenity did not apply when the statutory violations at issue were both classified as felonies, even though the offenses carried different punishments. Because the Court answered the question in the affirmative, the Court of Appeals' was reversed and the case remanded for the appellate court to reach the merits of the case. View "McNair v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Weston Cronkite was prosecuted for DUI and filed a motion under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State to obtain, through the testimony of an out-of-state witness, the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the evidence was not material, and, on interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals applied this Court?s decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that Cronkite's expert's testimony amounted only to speculation that the Intoxilyzer 5000 software contained an unknown flaw that could have affected the test results and thus failed to establish the materiality of the source code. The Supreme Court granted Cronkite's petition for certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals properly applied established Georgia case law in arriving at its conclusion. While the Court did not agree with the appellate court's analysis, it agreed with the outcome and affirmed but for different reasons. View "Cronkite v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Appellant Timothy Boothe was found guilty of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the death of Geneva Strickland. Appellant contends on appeal (among other things) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence photocopies of police sketches of two men that were based on descriptions from one of the State's witnesses. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that even if the admission of the sketch copies violated the "best evidence" rule of Georgia's old Evidence Code, that error was harmless. Appellant's other enumerations of error lacked merit. View "Boothe v. Georgia" on Justia Law