Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from his conviction of malice murder. The court held that the district court did not err in overruling defense counsel's objection to certain testimony based on improper bolstering where the testimony was admissible under the "rule of completeness" and rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary claim. The court also rejected defendant's four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was found guilty of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Defendant appealed after the denial of a motion for a new trial. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted and rejected defendant's claim that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress the pistol used to shoot the victim.

Defendant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence after being stopped for a traffic violation. The court granted a writ of certiorari to determine when the results of a state-administered Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test must be given to a defendant accused of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA 40-6-391. It was undisputed in this case that the officer delivered to defendant the required implied consent notice in an accurate and timely manner thereby informing him of his right to an independent test. Having done so, the State was under no constitutional duty to immediately inform defendant of the results of the State-administered breath test. Because the court held that the procedures followed by the State comported with the fundamental fairness required by due process, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. At issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and his request for a subpoena. Because the court held that the arresting officer's detention of defendant was a seizure and there was no evidence that the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop, the court reversed.

Defendant appealed his conviction of malice murder in connection with the beating death of the victim. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the similar transaction evidence, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of and sentenced for felony murder predicated on the underlying felony of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of the victim. On appeal, defendant asserted that he was denied ineffective assistance of trial counsel when counsel failed to understand and challenge expert testimony regarding how far gunpowder could travel and when counsel neglected to request a jury instruction as to whether the felony underlying his felony murder conviction was inherently dangerous. The court held that counsel's strategic decision to not contradict the expert's testimony and counsel's failure to request an inherently dangerous charge did not prejudice the defense. Accordingly, the court found no error and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his conviction of felony murder. The court held that the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his custody statements to the authorities was not erroneous where his questions regarding counsel were equivocal and did not trigger any duty on the part of the police to stop the interrogation. The court also held that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion for a new trial where defendant's speculation that error may have occurred, when counsel failed to have the voir dire and opening and closing statements transcribed, was insufficient to show any deficiency on the part of counsel, or prejudice therefore, and was insufficient to show reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant Disharoon and his girlfriend, Defendant McIntyre, were convicted on several charges involving sex with a minor. At issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that no violation of the Confrontation Clause occurred where an expert was allowed to testify about the results of DNA testing when that testifying expert was not the one who performed every step of the test. Because the present cases did not involve facts and circumstances that were controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that it was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause to allow the expert's testimony in these cases. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pled guilty to all crimes charged related to the attempted armed robbery and murder of the victim in the victim's restaurant. The court held that the trial court did not violate defendant's due process rights by sentencing him to life without parole. The court rejected defendant's contention that because he had just turned 20-years-old when he committed the crime, his sentence of life without parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his conviction for felony murder with the underlying felony being aggravated assault and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. Since it was not necessary in this case to instruct the jury on no duty to retreat in conjunction with defendant's sole defense of justification, the first prong of the State v. Kelly "plain error test" was not met. The court also held that the trial court did not err by accepting the jury's verdict where the jury was properly instructed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.