Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Kentavous Wilkerson challenged his convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Bradley Green and the non-fatal shooting of Rodney Greene. On appeal, Appellant contended: (1) the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motions for mistrial that he made following the prosecutor’s statements to the jury indicating that Appellant had been in jail for more than two years before trial. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wilkerson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Tarus Green was convicted of felony murder in connection with the 2012 shooting death of Gregory Bivin. On appeal, Green argued: (1) the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the jury during deliberations to review cell phone records that were admitted as evidence but were neither published nor explained to the jury during the trial; and (3) the trial court erred in allowing admission of a witness’s alleged prior inconsistent statement without first affording the witness the opportunity to explain or deny the substance of the statement pursuant to OCGA § 24-6-613 (b). The Georgia Supreme Court found each of these claims failed and affirmed Green's conviction. View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

After the Georgia Board of Public Safety (“the Board”) denied Rick Kuhlman’s application for relief from the prohibition on the possession of firearms by convicted felons in OCGA § 16-11-131, Kuhlman sued the State of Georgia seeking a declaratory judgment “that he qualifies for relief” from that prohibition pursuant to subsection (d) of the statute. His complaint also included claims that the statute, as applied to him, violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section I, Paragraph VIII of the Georgia Constitution of 1983. The superior court granted summary judgment to the State on all claims. In its order, the court ruled that Kuhlman’s statutory claim was barred by sovereign immunity, that he could not maintain his federal constitutional claim, and that OCGA § 16-11-131 did not violate the state constitution. Nevertheless, the superior court went on to rule in the alternative on the merits of Kuhlman’s statutory claim, but it failed to reach the merits of his federal constitutional claim. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the portion of the superior court’s judgment that was based on sovereign immunity, affirmed the court’s alternative ruling on the merits of Kuhlman’s statutory claim, vacated the portion of the judgment that related to Kuhlman’s constitutional claims, and remanded the case to the superior court for reconsideration of Kuhlman’s constitutional claims. View "Kuhlman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Kaylynn Ruthenberg was convicted of malice murder and other crimes arising from the shooting death of James Jones and the robbery of Samuel Gallardo. Appellant contended the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his three prior misdemeanor convictions for simple battery under OCGA § 24- 4-418 and that the admission of this evidence violated OCGA § 24- 4-403. Because Appellant failed to carry his burden to show plain error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ruthenberg v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Diontye Scott was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Antonio Veal. On appeal, Scott contended his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to: (1) request an instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of the stipulations to Scott’s prior felony convictions as proof of his status as a convicted felon; (2) request an instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of Scott’s prior felony convictions to only impeachment; and (3) object to the State’s closing argument, which allegedly misstated the burden of proof. He also argued (4) these errors, taken together, deprived him of a fair trial. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded Scott’s ineffective-assistance claims had no merit. "Even assuming that his counsel erred by failing to object to the State’s closing argument, Scott failed to show more than one error, so we need not assess any cumulative prejudice. So we affirm his convictions." View "Scott v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio certified two questions to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding whether a state entity could continue asserting claims against opioid manufacturers and distributors after the State of Georgia entered into a settlement with the pharmaceutical companies, and as part of the settlement, the General Assembly enacted OCGA § 10-13B-1, et seq. (the “Settlement Act”) in 2022, which included a litigation preemption provision that “bar[s] any and all past, present or future claims on behalf of any governmental entity seeking to recover against any business or person that is a released entity under the terms of the relevant settlement.” OCGA § 10-13B-3 (a) (the “preemption provision”). In April 2019, before Georgia entered into the state-wide settlement with the pharmaceutical companies, the Hospital Authority of Wayne County, Georgia (“HAWC”) filed suit against a number of such entities, seeking to recover unreimbursed amounts it claims to have expended in treating opioid-dependent patients. HAWC subsequently chose not to participate in the state-wide settlement and did not individually release any of its claims. At some point, HAWC’s litigation was consolidated, along with over 3,000 other cases, into a federal multidistrict litigation in the District Court. See In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation, (MDL No. 2804). Seven defendants named in HAWC’s complaint filed a motion to dismiss HAWC’s claims against them (the “Motion”), contending that the suit was barred by the preemption provision. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the Georgia General Assembly's passage of the preemption provision took away any power HAWC otherwise might have had under OCGA § 31-7-75 to pursue claims that the preemption provision and the Settlement Act were unconstitutional, and the answer to the first question certified by the District Court was no. In light of this answer, the Supreme Court did not need to answer the second certified question. View "Hospital Authority of Wayne County v. AmeriSourceBergen Drug Corp, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant Robert Annunziata was convicted by jury of malice murder and other crimes in connection with a 2019 shooting that took place outside of a nightclub that resulted in the death of John Price and injuries to Washington Young and Andrew Darling. On appeal, Appellant contended the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Annunziata v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ricardo Beltran-Gonzales appealed his conviction for malice murder in connection with a 2013 stabbing at Hays State Prison, which resulted in the death of fellow inmate Nathaniel Reynolds. On appeal, Appellant contended the trial court abused its discretion in recharging the jury on malice murder without also recharging the jury on Appellant’s defenses. Appellant also argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State jointly trying Appellant with another inmate, Leonardo Ramos Rodrigues, who was separately charged with committing the same fatal stabbing. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "Beltran-Gonzales v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Joshua DeMuro was convicted by jury of murder in the 2018 shooting death of Kevin Gilman. DeMuro challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and contended the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fatal shooting was not justified. DeMuro also argued the trial court gave incomplete jury instructions on witness credibility, impeachment, and justification and that the trial court erred in refusing to send written jury instructions out with the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "DeMuro v. Georgia" on Justia Law

James Randolph was convicted by jury of malice murder, armed robbery, and other crimes in connection with the 2000 armed robbery of Carlos Torres and Dennis Dixon and the shooting death of Rodney Castlin. On appeal, Randolph argued the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two other acts under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b). Because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the accomplice’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence admitted at trial, that the trial court did not err in admitting one prior incident of armed robbery, and that any error in admitting the other incident (a home burglary) was harmless, the judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "Randolph v. Georgia" on Justia Law