Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Israel Rutland was convicted of felony murder in connection with the deaths of Kelly Prescott and Matthew Horton resulting from a vehicular collision following a high-speed police chase. On appeal, Appellant contended in two related claims that his convictions for felony murder and homicide by vehicle in the first degree constituted “inconsistent verdicts” requiring reversal. Finding no no error, plain or otherwise, in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that it could not find Appellant guilty of both felony murder and homicide by vehicle in the first degree, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions. View "Rutland v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Antonio Wilson was convicted of felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Tre Griffin. On appeal, he contended: (1) the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction for conspiracy to purchase marijuana; (2) his indictment did not adequately describe that drug-conspiracy charge, which was the predicate felony for his felony-murder charge; (3) the State failed to prove that the predicate felony proximately caused the victim’s death; (4) the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury that a felony-murder conviction must be based on proof that the predicate felony proximately caused the death; (5) the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on conspiracy to possess marijuana as a lesser included offense of conspiracy to purchase marijuana; (6) the trial court improperly instructed the jury about proof of participation in a conspiracy; (7) the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, including a homemade rap video and Instagram messages from Wilson to a co-defendant; and (8) the trial court improperly imposed a sentence of life without parole. After review of the trial court record, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded each of these claims failed, and affirmed Wilson's conviction. View "Wilson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Antonio Williams was convicted by jury of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Martrell Gay. On appeal, Williams argued: (1) the trial court plainly erred by admitting cell-site location information (“CSLI”) secured through an insufficiently particularized “general” warrant; and (2) the trial court plainly erred by charging the jury that the testimony of a single witness was sufficient under OCGA § 24-14-8 without charging the jury on the need for corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Jerry Arroyo was charged with trafficking cocaine. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant for his apartment, arguing the warrant was not supported by probable cause because it relied upon evidence illegally obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, namely, a drug-sniffing dog’s positive alert for illegal drugs within the curtilage of his apartment. The trial court reserved ruling on the motion pretrial but denied the motion after the jury was impaneled and sworn. Then, after the State rested its case, the court sua sponte changed course, granting the motion to suppress and ordering a mistrial without prejudice based on a finding that the dog had entered the curtilage of the apartment when it sniffed immediately in front of Arroyo’s door. The State appealed but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear the merits of the State’s appeal, and (2) if so, whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. Because OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (4) did not authorize the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment was vacated and the matter remanded with instructions to return the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Georgia v. Arroyo" on Justia Law

Appellant Gregory Montgomery challenged his 2019 convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Justuss Rogers. Appellant argued the trial court erred in its recharge to the jury after the jury sent the court a note during deliberations and that the court should have granted him a new trial under the “thirteenth juror” standard. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court found the trial court did not err in its recharge to the jury, and Appellant’s “thirteenth juror” claim was wholly without merit. Accordingly, the convictions were affirmed. View "Montgomery v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Justin Whited was convicted of felony murder, aggravated battery, and cruelty to children in the first degree in connection with the death of his seven-week old daughter, Dinah Whited. On appeal, Whited argued that: (1) the trial court plainly erred by giving a single-witness charge under OCGA § 24-14-8 without also giving a charge on accomplice corroboration; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Whited’s motion in limine under OCGA § 24-4-403 to exclude from evidence a recording of a phone call in which Whited discussed the decision to remove his daughter from life support. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Whited v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Donovan Gay received a speeding ticket and to which he pled not guilty. While his case was pending, he filed a pretrial petition for habeas corpus to challenge pretrial restrictions on his driving privileges. The habeas court dismissed the petition, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal: as the Court held in Phillips v. Jackson, 877 SE2d 185 (2022), pretrial habeas relief under OCGA § 9-14-1 (a) was not available when, as here, the proceedings under which the petitioner’s liberty was restrained were still pending and he could seek relief under ordinary established procedures. Because Gay could have asked the state court to remove the restrictions in question and could have sought an interlocutory appeal if the court refused, pretrial habeas relief was not available to him. View "Gay v. Jackson, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant Walter Wright challenged his conviction for felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Oletha Brady. Appellant contended: (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury on good character evidence; and (3) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to that instruction. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient; the instruction on good character evidence, which tracked the pattern jury instruction in effect was not erroneous; and that Appellant’s counsel did not perform deficiently in failing to make a meritless objection to the instruction. View "Wright v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Kentrick Ridley was convicted of malice murder and related crimes in connection with the 2016 shooting death of Rico Bynum. On appeal, Ridley contended: (1) the evidence was not sufficient as a matter of due process to support his convictions; and (2) the trial court failed to fulfill its role as the “thirteenth juror,” and that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to make certain statements during her closing argument. The Georgia Supreme Court found the record showed the evidence was sufficient to support Ridley’s convictions and that the trial court exercised its role as the thirteenth juror. "And most of the closing- argument statements that Ridley challenges were proper comments on the defense’s failure to present evidence—made with express reference to the fact that the burden of proof rests 'completely' with the State—while the remaining statement at issue properly asked the jury to draw a reasonable inference supported by undisputed evidence." So the Court affirmed Ridley’s convictions and sentences. View "Ridley v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A trial court granted Jeremiah Kelly's motion for a new trial, but gave the State an opportunity to request a rehearing within 30 days. The State filed such a request within that time, but did so after the expiration of the term of court in which the order granting a new trial was entered. Nevertheless, the trial court purported to enter a denial of Kelly’s motion for new trial. Kelly appealed that trial court order. Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the State’s out-of-term request for rehearing or to enter an order denying the motion for new trial, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated that order and remanded the case for further proceedings pursuant to the trial court’s initial order granting Kelly a new trial. View "Kelly v. Georgia" on Justia Law