Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Paris Leroy Johnson, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Antonio Milton. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Johnson appealed, contending that the trial court erred when it failed to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense, when it allowed the State to cross-examine him about his failure to come forward and make a statement, and when it admitted testimony that impermissibly placed his character into evidence. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court saw no error and affirmed. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

John Dodson, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of his 82-year-old neighbor, Willie Wright, Sr. Dodson appealed, contending that the State failed to show at trial that Wright died as a result of Dodson assaulting him. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dodson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Darnell Harvey was convicted of malice murder, rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated assault in connection with the strangulation death of Valerie Payton. He appealed the denial of his motion for new trial in which he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and asserted that the trial court erred in the admission of similar transaction evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Harvey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After his jury trial had begun, William James Henderson pled guilty to two counts of murder and additional counts of attempted murder, rape, burglary, and numerous lesser offenses. Henderson appealed pro se, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his out-of-time appeal. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court saw no error and affirmed. View "Henderson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Manoucher Jahanbin (husband) appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside the final judgment and decree in a divorce action brought by Zahra Rafieishad (wife). Husband contended that the trial court erred in finding service upon him was perfected. The parties met in their native Iran, but were married in Atlanta, Georgia, shortly after moving here in 2007. After living together in Georgia for several years, husband began traveling internationally and spending time in Iran while wife remained in the marital residence in Atlanta. Wife filed for divorce; after attempts to have husband served personally in Iran were unsuccessful, the trial court entered an instructing wife to utilize the provisions of OCGA 9-11-4 (f)(3)(B)(iii)(II) and deliver the summons and complaint to the clerk of court, who was "directed to mail the correspondence" to husband's residence in Tehran, Iran. However, upon providing the correspondence to the clerk of court, the clerk instructed wife's attorney to complete the registered mail receipt in Farsi and to transact the mailing herself. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the requirements of OCGA 9-11-4 (f)(3)(B)(iii)(II) were not met and reversed: "[w]hile this Court recognizes the difficulties incumbent in the fact that mail sent to a foreign country may require the address to be written in a foreign script, OCGA 9-11-4 (f)(3)(B)(iii)(II) does not permit the clerk of court to direct someone else to address and dispatch the mail for service of process." View "Jahanbin v. Rafieishad" on Justia Law

Defendant Gary Simpson appealed a trial court's denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. Defendant was convicted of and sentenced on three counts each of malice murder, aggravated assault and concealing a death. He filed a number of post-appeal motions with the superior court, and the court entered an order in 2011 that his motion was partially granted, finding that the aggravated assaults merged into the malice murders. The order set forth life sentences for each of the murder counts, and ten-year sentences for each count of concealing a death, all to be served consecutively. In his motion for arrest of judgment, Defendant argued that his indictment suffered from a fatal defect in its "deceptive language" and presented a "non amendable defect void on its face." The trial court denied Defendant's motion as untimely. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant contended that the trial court's sentencing order constituted a new judgment of conviction, and that his motion of arrest of judgment was indeed timely filed. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court. View "Simpson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In July 2011, Jing Liu sued Hao Wang alleging that Wang held stock in a Chinese company, that Wang held this stock on behalf of Liu, that Wang had misappropriated the stock for his own use, and that Wang wrongfully withheld distributions and other funds derived from his holding of the stock, to all of which Liu was entitled. A few weeks later, the trial court entered an interlocutory injunction that prohibited Wang from transferring certain assets while the lawsuit was pending, and Wang moved to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In early 2012, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stayed the lawsuit pending the resolution of a related lawsuit in China, and ordered the interlocutory injunction be made permanent. Wang appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss and the order making permanent the interlocutory injunction. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court concluded that Wang failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss, but concluded that the trial court erred when it entered a permanent injunction without adequate notice to, or the consent of, the parties. View "Wang v. Liu" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant-Appellant Denzel Laquan Ward appealed his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, contending that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction regarding the credibility of a testifying defendant. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, except for the separate judgment of conviction and sentence for felony murder. The Court concluded that since there was a single victim, Defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for malice and felony murder. View "Ward v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Anthony Terrell Smith appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon at a public gathering, which were in connection with the shooting death of Romondez Lashan Lester. Defendant raised numerous issues of error by the trial court on appeal to the Supreme Court. But finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In "Smith v. Georgia," (663 SE2d 155 (2008)), the Supreme Court reversed Appellant Tavaris Smith's murder conviction, finding that the trial court had erred in classifying Appellant's sleepwalking defense as an insanity defense. Following retrial, Appellant was again convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant challenged his second conviction on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, trial counsel ineffectiveness, evidentiary errors and problems with the jury's instructions. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law