Thomas v. State

Tyler Jarel Thomas was charged with murder in Fulton County. Before trial, a judge suppressed cell phone location records obtained without a warrant, relying on an appeals court decision that was later reversed. Years later, right before trial, the State asked the judge to reconsider, but a different judge refused, citing the end-of-term rule, a doctrine that generally stops trial judges from changing interlocutory rulings after the court term ends. Thomas was convicted, but the Supreme Court of Georgia later overturned that conviction on other grounds (a Brady violation involving undisclosed evidence) and sent the case back for a new trial. On remand, the State again asked the court to revisit the suppression ruling, and this time a judge agreed and allowed the evidence in. Thomas argued the end-of-term rule still barred that move. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed, holding that once a new trial is granted, the old final judgment is erased, so trial courts remain free to revisit earlier interlocutory rulings.

The court held that because the grant of a new trial wiped out the final judgment in Thomas's case, the end-of-term rule did not bar the trial court from reconsidering and vacating its earlier order suppressing the cell phone location evidence, so the reconsideration was proper.

The ruling clarifies that Georgia trial judges can reconsider pretrial evidentiary rulings, including suppression orders, once a new trial is granted, even years later. This affects how prosecutors and defense attorneys handle retrials and shapes what evidence juries may ultimately hear in cases sent back for new trials.

Affirmed

1. The end-of-term rule generally limits a trial court's power to change its own interlocutory (non-final) rulings once the court term in which the ruling was made has ended, but this rule applies only until a final judgment exists.
2. The court distinguished this case from Moon v. State, where no new trial had been granted and the end-of-term rule still applied to block reconsideration of an old ruling.
3. Relying on Ritter v. State and Smith v. State, the court explained that when a new trial is granted, the prior final judgment is erased, meaning the case is no longer bound by the term-based limits that apply only before final judgment.
4. Because Thomas's conviction and sentence had been vacated by the grant of a new trial after his Brady claim succeeded, there was no final judgment in his case, so the trial court retained full authority to revisit the earlier suppression order.
5. The court rejected Thomas's argument that his case reverted entirely to its pre-trial posture with all prior rulings frozen in place, finding no case law supporting that a granted new trial leaves old interlocutory rulings immune from reconsideration.

• cell phone location data
• motion to suppress
• end-of-term rule
• murder retrial
• Fourth Amendment