Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Haskell Johnson was jointly indicted with Derek Willingham and Franklin Frails for malice murder, felony murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime after the shooting death of Ritchard Lewis. Willingham and Frails were also indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Appellant was tried first and convicted of all counts. Appellant contended on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a similar transaction, in charging the jury that it was permitted but not required to infer that a person in possession of a vehicle possesses the contents of that vehicle, and in ruling against his claim that the State was collaterally estopped from admitting evidence that he possessed the gun used to kill the victim. Upon review, the Supreme Court rejected those claims and affirmed all of the judgment except for Appellant’s life sentence for felony murder, which the Court vacated. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Billy D. Nicely was tried by a jury and convicted of the murder of Tayore Wright, a one-year-old girl. On appeal, Nicely contended that his father was denied equal protection when the father was excluded from portions of the trial pursuant to the rule of witness sequestration, OCGA 24-9-61, while the mother of Tayore was permitted to attend the trial pursuant to a statutory exemption to the rule of sequestration contained in the Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights, OCGA 17-17-9 (b). Nicely also claimed that the trial court erred when it denied his pretrial demurrer, when it limited his cross-examination of an expert witness at trial, and when it refused to instruct the jury as Nicely requested. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Nicely v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Lawrence Rice of murdering Connie Mincher and her 14-year-old son, Ethan, and of burglary. The jury found multiple statutory aggravating circumstances related to each of the murders and recommended a death sentence for each of the murders, which the trial court imposed. Upon our review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no errors at trial, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Rice guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts. View "Rice v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant John Dennis Woods appealed his convictions for malice murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and concealing the death of another, all in connection with the death of Travis Sauls. The evidence authorized the jury to find Woods guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted, and the trial court found no ineffective assistance of counsel. However, after review of the record, the Supreme Court found that Defendant presented evidence that he suffered from a mental disease that could have produced a seizure causing a temporary delusion that Sauls posed a threat to his life, even though Sauls may not, in fact, have posed any immediate threat. Defendant filed a written request that the jury be instructed on the law regarding a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. During a charge conference, the trial court agreed to give that instruction, as well as certain other written instructions Defendant requested. The next day, immediately before argument, Defendant verbally requested that the jury be instructed on the law regarding self defense using pattern charges; but he had not submitted a written request for such an instruction. The State objected. The trial court stated that the instructions would remain as had been decided during the charge conference. Accordingly, the jury could not determine whether Defendant was suffering from a delusion that satisfied the legal definition without an understanding of what constituted an act that would have been justified, if the circumstances were as Defendant contended he believed them to be, without being instructed as to what conduct would constitute justification. Absent such an instruction, the jury was not provided “with the proper guidelines for determining guilt or innocence.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant must be afforded a new trial. View "Woods v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Winston Clay Barrett of malice murder and related crimes and recommended a death sentence for the murder after finding beyond a reasonable doubt the following statutory aggravating circumstances: the murder was committed while Barrett was engaged in the commission of an aggravated battery, and the murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman in that it involved torture and an aggravated battery to the victim before his death and manifested the defendant's depravity of mind. The trial court denied Barrett's motion for new trial, and he appealed. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Barrett's conviction and sentence. View "Barrett v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Justin Brown was convicted of felony murder, aggravated battery, kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault, and burglary in connection with the shooting death of J.R. Morrow. Brown's motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed that decision and his conviction and sentence. On appeal, Brown asserted that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the State failed to prove the "asportation" requirement for kidnapping with bodily injury; (3) the State knowingly introduced false testimony in support of its case in chief; and (4) the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury concerning mere approval of an act and withdrawal from a conspiracy. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Brown's conviction. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in this case to determine whether the definition of "tangible evidence," as that term is used in OCGA 17-5-21 (a) (5), includes evidence gained by thermal imaging. Although the Court found that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in determining that the term "tangible evidence" encompasses the evidence at issue, it nonetheless affirmed the appellate court's judgment. In 2009, a University of Georgia police officer assigned to a drug task force, after receiving a tip from a confidential informant, investigated an individual who was suspected of growing marijuana. The warrant authorized the detective to "search and seize" the "[a]namolous heat loss occurring at the described premises . . . ." The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that "tangible evidence" as used in OCGA 17-5-21 (a) (5) was that which was not "testimony or verbal statements"; the term "tangible evidence" as used in the statute did not embrace the "amorphous heat loss" captured by the thermal imaging used here. Although the Court of Appeals noted that heat radiating from a building is "real and substantial, rather than imaginary, "[g]iving the word 'tangible' full effect, it appears that the General Assembly intended 'tangible evidence' to mean evidence that is essentially an object with material form that could be touched by a person. . .[t]hat meaning does not include the remotely-sensed heat at issue here." View "Brundige v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In case number S12A0649, Burke County, its Board of Commissioners, and various members of the Board, individually and in their official capacities appealed the superior court's grant of a writ of mandamus involving the obligation to maintain roads dedicated to the County. In case number S12X0650, Otis F. Askin, Sr., and Tiger, Inc. cross-appealed the failure of the superior court to grant certain other relief that Askin had requested. As to each appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court and remanded with direction. View "Burke County v. Askin" on Justia Law

Appellant Devon Sharif Doyle was convicted and sentenced for malice murder, several counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. He appealed asserting, inter alia, trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Doyle v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jamie Inagawa, the Solicitor-General of Fayette County, filed a mandamus action against Fayette County and its Commissioners in their official capacities asserting that since July 1, 2007 his compensation had been incorrectly calculated. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Inagawa and partial summary judgment to the County, and each party appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly held that Inagawa was improperly compensated beginning in July 2007. The Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the County properly compensated Inagawa as of January 1, 2009 in accordance with an amended local law, because the Court found that amendment invalid. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Inagawa v. Fayette County" on Justia Law