Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed the grant of habeas corpus relief to defendant Michelle Hall, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the presumption of prejudice when reviewing defendant's sole claim that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that defendant failed to show actual prejudice and that her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been rejected, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Seabolt v. Hall" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court: "Is it proper for a jury to consider a defendant’s worldly circumstances when deciding the amount of damages that should be imposed under OCGA 51-12-6?" The question arose from a case in which the issue on appeal was whether admission of "worldly circumstances" evidence in a tort action where the only injury to plaintiff was to his peace, happiness or feelings. Steven Caviness was injured in a train accident and retained attorney James Holland, II to pursue an action against the train company. The attorney filed a complaint; the company raised the affirmative defense of the expiration of the statute of limitation. The client was not told of the mistake until twenty days after his attorney learned of the missed statute of limitation. Caviness sued his attorney, and the attorney was granted summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim. A breach of fiduciary duty claim was allowed to proceed, but the district court found that because the only remaining injury to Caviness's peace, happiness or feelings, OCGA 51-12-6 applied. Caviness introduced evidence of Holland's worldly circumstances, including the law firm's income, the attorney's salary, the attorney's real estate holdings and personal property. A jury awarded Caviness $700,000 in damages. Holland's motion for a new trial was denied with leave to renew pending the Supreme Court's answer to the certified question. The Supreme Court responded that OCGA 51-12-6 precludes admission of worldly circumstances when the only injury is to a plaintiff's peace, happiness or feelings. View "Holland v. Caviness" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, appellants Desmond Griffin and Charlie Boyd were found guilty of the felony murder of James Clark based on the underlying felony of aggravated assault. Griffin was also found guilty of separate charges of aggravated assault against Ronald Rosson and the simple battery of Clark. Appellants’ motions for new trial were denied, and they appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error in the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Boyd v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Brandon Leonard appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the shooting deaths of Thomas Darr and Jim Cates. Defendant argued that the admission of certain evidence at trial was done in error, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the admission of that evidence, and for his conduct during voir dire. Finding no error or ineffective counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leonard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After Mack Pitts was killed in a construction accident at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, his estate and minor children sued the City of Atlanta and several contractors for breaches of contracts concerning the construction project on which Pitts had been working. Although Pitts was not a party to these contracts, his estate and children asserted that he was an intended beneficiary and that they, therefore, had standing to sue for breach of the contracts. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found that Pitts was not an intended beneficiary, denied summary judgment to the estate and children, and awarded summary judgment to the City and contractors. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court should have awarded summary judgment on the claims for breach of contract to the estate and children, not to the City and contractors. The Court of Appeals determined that Pitts was, in fact, an intended beneficiary of the contracts, and it found that the evidence was undisputed that the City and contractors had breached the contracts. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals misapplied or failed to apply several fundamental principles of contract law in its consideration of these cases. Accordingly, the Court vacated the appellate court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Holder Construction Company v. Estate of Pitts" on Justia Law

Appellant Kasaem Toomer challenged his 2009 convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Justin Cox. Appellant contended that the trial court erred in rejecting his "Batson" claim that the prosecutor used three peremptory strikes to exclude prospective jurors solely because of their race, thereby violating his right to equal protection of the law. Appellant also contended that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his repeated mistrial motions after the State played portions of his videotaped police interviews in which he admitted that he was on probation, had been arrested for fighting, and had been convicted of burglary. Furthermore, Appellant asserted that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no merit to Appellant's claims on appeal and affirmed his convictions. View "Toomer v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool (GIIP), Lumpkin County appealed, contending that following the insolvency of the County's regular insurer, GIIP was required to step in and cover the pending workers' compensation claims against the County. Specifically, the County argued that the trial court erred in finding that it was not entitled to coverage under the GIIP because the County's net worth exceeded $25 million. Alternatively, the County argued OCGA 33-36-3 unconstitutionally violated the County's due process rights. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: "The County contend[ed] that this ruling was erroneous because the term 'net worth' is inapplicable to government entities, and, instead, the applicability of the twenty-five million dollar exemption under the Act should be assessed based on the County's 'net assets.' The County argue[d] that the bulk of its assets, including land, roads, bridges, and government buildings are restricted from use and are thus unavailable to meet its obligations or satisfy liabilities. Based on the County's calculation of its own net assets, it only has $5.6 million dollars with which to meet these obligations. As a result, the County maintain[ed] that it should receive coverage for its claims from the GIIP. This argument is misplaced." Therefore, the Court held that the trial court did not err in excluding the County from GIIP protection based on the net worth exemption. Furthermore, the County does not possess due process rights by which to challenge the constitutionality of the Act, and its argument premised on any such right necessarily failed. View "Lumpkin Co. v. Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool" on Justia Law

Eugene Hammond appealed the trial court's denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. In 2000, Hammond was convicted superior court on charges of the felony murder of his son, the aggravated assault of his wife, and of making terroristic threats toward his wife. On March 10, 2000, he was sentenced to life in prison, and an additional prison term of ten years, to be served consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. On August 11, 2011, Hammond filed a motion in arrest of judgment, claiming that his indictment was void because it had failed to allege venue, and that he was improperly convicted of more than one crime arising from the same conduct. On November 1, 2011, the trial court denied the motion, finding that it was without jurisdiction to consider it because it was untimely, and expressly stating that the allegations in the motion were without merit. As "a trial court's ruling on a motion in arrest of judgment is normally directly appealable to whichever appellate court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case," Hammond appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding that Hammond's motion in arrest of judgment was not filed in the term at which the judgment was obtained, but more than eleven years later, and was thus untimely, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Hammond v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The State appealed the superior court's grant of a new trial to Xavier Harris, who was found guilty of felony murder and related crimes in connection with the August 1, 2005 fatal shooting of Ron Strozier and the conspiracy to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon of an individual known only as "DBone." For the reasons that follow, we affirm. In March 2006, a grand jury returned a 17-count indictment against Harris and four other men: Michael Grissom; Markell Dorsey; Rico Sims; and Darnell Amaker. Harris was named in all but four of the counts, which included charges of malice and felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy, criminal damage to property, and firearms possession. The defendants were all tried together, and the State argued that the crimes were related and part and parcel of the same conspiracy. The jury found Harris guilty of Strozier's felony murder predicated on the conspiracy to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against Strozier, conspiracy to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against D-Bone, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property in the first degree; voluntary manslaughter; involuntary manslaughter based upon reckless conduct; and reckless conduct. Harris was also found guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault against D-Bone, conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property in the first degree, and possession of a firearm during the commission of multiple crimes against D-Bone. Harris was either found not guilty of the remaining charges or they were resolved by directed verdicts of acquittal. Harris moved to vacate his convictions and for a new trial; however, by that time the judge who presided over the trial had retired, and a different judge considered the motion for a new trial. This judge granted Harris a new trial on the general grounds, expressly finding that the verdicts were decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence, contrary to the law and principles of equity and justice, and that the evidence warranted the court exercising its discretion to grant Harris a new trial. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court found no abuse of the successor court's discretion in granting Harris a new trial on the general grounds. View "Georgia v. Harris" on Justia Law

Norma Fitzpatrick, Barry Fitzpatrick and George Elrod, (taxpayers), own parcels of land in Madison County. Following a valuation of those properties for tax purposes by the Madison County Board of Assessors, the taxpayers appealed the valuation to the Madison County Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization denied the appeal. Subsequently, the taxpayers filed an appeal in superior court, but the Board of Assessors refused to certify the appeal to the superior court unless the taxpayers first paid the filing fee to the superior court clerk. Thereafter, the taxpayers contended that, except for appeals to an arbitrator pursuant to OCGA 48-5-311(f), a taxpayer is not required to pay any fee at all for an appeal. Based on this argument, the taxpayers filed a declaratory action seeking a ruling to this effect. The trial court issued an order finding that the taxpayers are responsible for paying the filing fee, which prompted the taxpayers to appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon review of the applicable statute, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Fitzpatrick v. Madison Co. Bd. of Tax Assessors" on Justia Law