Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

William Clark was convicted of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Anthony King and the aggravated assault of Anthony Davis. In his appeal, Clark contended: (1) the evidence presented at his trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions for the crimes against King; (2) the trial court applied the wrong standard in admitting evidence of an audio recording of his interview with the lead investigator for his case; (3) the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on knowledge, grave suspicion, mere presence, and mere association; and (4) his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to request those instructions and by failing to file a demurrer to the indictment. Finding no merit to any of these claims, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Clark's convictions. View "Clark v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michelle Hightower was charged with malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Michael McGee. Hightower’s trial on these charges began March 9, 2020, and four days later, on March 13, after the Chief Judge of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit issued an order declaring a judicial emergency due to the continued transmission of the COVID-19 virus, the trial court declared a mistrial in Hightower’s case, over defense counsel’s objections. Hightower subsequently filed a plea in bar and motion to dismiss the indictment, asserting that further prosecution of her case was barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions because there was no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial and because the trial court did not exercise its discretion or consider reasonable alternatives prior to declaring the mistrial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Plea in Bar on May 21, 2021, and Hightower appealed. Because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial, judgment was affirmed. View "Hightower v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michael Kenney was convicted by jury of malice murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Laquitta Brown. Before trial, Kenney moved in limine to exclude hearsay statements that Sharrie Dixon, a witness present during the shooting who was unavailable to testify at trial, allegedly made to Aisha Brown (“Aisha”), Laquitta’s partner. In response, the State filed a notice of intent to admit Dixon’s statements to Aisha under OCGA § 24-8-807 (“the residual exception” or “Rule 807”). The court construed the State’s notice as a motion to admit Dixon’s statements. Then, finding that the State had failed to establish exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness, the court granted Kenney’s motion in limine and denied the State’s construed motion to admit Dixon’s statements. The State timely appealed under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(5). On appeal, the State argued the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dixon’s statements because the statements were admissible under OCGA §§ 24-8-803 (1) (present sense impression), 24-8-803 (2) (excited utterance), and 24-8-807 (the residual exception). The Georgia Supreme Court concluded, however, that the State affirmatively waived its present-sense-impression and excited-utterance arguments and that the court was authorized to conclude that Dixon’s statements were inadmissible under the residual exception. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Georgia v. Kenney" on Justia Law

During Joseph Watkins’s murder trial, a juror conducted a “drive test” during a break in deliberations to see whether the defendant could have been physically present at the time and place the victim was shot. The next day, the jury voted to convict Watkins of felony murder and other crimes, and he was sentenced to life in prison. Years later, Watkins’s counsel learned about the juror’s misconduct and filed the habeas petition in this case. The habeas court ultimately granted relief on the juror-misconduct claim and two other grounds. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded Watkins has shown that the juror’s misconduct caused him actual prejudice—for at least that juror, her drive test “proved” a key and heavily disputed piece of the State’s burden of proof against Watkins—and affirmed the grant of habeas relief on the juror-misconduct claim. View "Ballinger v. Watkins" on Justia Law

In October 2016, Taiquan Mitchell and Deon Dorsey were jointly tried and found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Marcus Waters, Jr. On appeal, Mitchell argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the general grounds and in denying his motion for a mistrial after two jurors were seen being served alcoholic beverages during a lunch break. Dorsey separately argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crimes for which he was convicted. The Georgia Supreme Court consolidated these appeals for the purpose of issuing an opinion, and finding no reversible error, affirmed the convictions. View "Mitchell v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Ronald Smith was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Charles Adams. Smith appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts, that the trial court erred in admitting Smith’s custodial statements and in giving or refusing to give certain jury instructions, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because Smith’s claims of error were without merit, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Holly Harvey appealed a trial court order denying her motion for an out-of-time appeal, denying her motion to modify her sentences, and dismissing her motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. In 2004, Harvey was indicted on two counts of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, and one count of armed robbery in connection with the August 2, 2004, stabbing deaths of her grandparents. After reviewing the record, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court properly dismissed her motion to withdraw her guilty pleas because it was untimely filed. Because her motion for an out-of-time appeal and motion to modify her sentences also should have been dismissed, the Court vacated that part of the trial court’s order denying these motions and remanded to the trial court with direction. View "Harvey v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Georgia Supreme Court's review centered on whether a grandmother’s action for visitation rights to her biological granddaughter (the minor child of her deceased daughter) under OCGA § 19-7-3 was precluded by the adoption of the child by her stepmother, and whether certain subsections of the grandparent visitation statute were unconstitutional, among other issues. The Supreme Court concluded that: (1) the grandmother was authorized to pursue an action for visitation rights to her granddaughter despite the adoption; and (2) with respect to the constitutional challenges, the Court needed only to consider the constitutionality of one of the three subsections at issue—which it held to be constitutional. Accordingly, the trial court's rulings were affirmed. View "Barhhill, et al. v. Alford" on Justia Law

Robert Caviston was convicted by jury of malice murder and arson in the first degree in connection with the death of his 92-year-old mother, Agnes Caviston. Caviston contended the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the general grounds. He also argued the trial court erred in admitting harmful evidence of a fantasy novel that he had written, titled “The Philosophy of Murder,” thus requiring a new trial. Because Caviston failed to show reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Caviston v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Danyel Smith was convicted of the murder of his infant son based on a theory of “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS). Smith argued that the science regarding diagnosis of brain injuries in infants has changed so much since his trial that he was entitled to a new trial based on a new expert affidavit ruling out battery or shaking as the cause of the baby’s death. The trial court rejected that argument and denied Smith’s extraordinary motion for new trial without a hearing. Because Smith’s extraordinary motion alleged facts that, if proven, could warrant relief, the trial court was not authorized to deny the motion without a hearing. The Georgia Supreme Court therefore vacated the trial court’s ruling on the motion and remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law