Georgia CommonsBuscar en todas las colecciones
Buscar en Georgia Commons
Proyectos de ley, opiniones de la Corte Suprema, el Código y las dos constituciones, y transcripciones de las reuniones de la Cámara y el Senado, en una sola búsqueda. Pregunte con palabras sencillas: la búsqueda ordena los pasajes por su significado y también por sus palabras.
Filtros:Opiniones de la Corte Suprema 2021 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 104 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de junio de 2021
Taylor v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de Micayla Taylor por asesinato mientras cometía un delito grave y agresión agravada derivadas de un tiroteo en el condado de Newton, rechazando reclamos sobre pruebas insuficientes, una moción de supresión mal manejada, una violación al derecho a un juicio rápido, una instrucción al jurado y asistencia letrada ineficaz.
4. Appellant’s next contention alleges error by the trial court in denying her plea in bar. On August 18, 2018, Appellant filed a plea in bar, asserting that her constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated because, following her indictment, the trial of her case was continued from multiple trial calendars, primarily at the State’s request. The...
(a) Threshold inquiry. Courts examining an alleged denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial first must consider whether the interval between the defendant’s arrest, indictment, or other formal accusation and the trial is sufficiently long so as to be characterized as presumptively prejudicial. If the delay is long enough to invoke the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de octubre de 2021
Tyson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de LeMichael Tyson por asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave en la muerte de la hija de 22 meses de su novia, rechazando reclamos sobre parcialidad del jurado, transcripciones faltantes del juicio, demora en la apelación y defensa ineficaz.
9 Tyson contends that he could not obtain testimony regarding events at trial because the trial judge, the court reporter, and a courtroom deputy have died. But Tyson’s trial counsel was available and testified at the hearing on Tyson’s motion for new trial with regard to various matters that occurred at trial. And nothing in the record indicates that the...
“Substantial delays in the appellate process implicate due process rights, and we review appellate due process claims under the four-factor analysis used for speedy trial claims set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514 (92 SCt 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972).” Veal v. State, 301 Ga. 161, 167 (3) (800 SE2d 325) (2017). “In assessing a due process claim premised...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de octubre de 2021
American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Zeh
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un defensor público de delitos menores del condado de Glynn que demandó a la ACLU por difamación era un funcionario público, lo que significa que tenía que probar que la ACLU sabía que su publicación de blog era falsa o actuó con temerario desprecio por la verdad, algo que no logró demostrar con el expediente actual.
The proper provision of constitutionally required legal representation for indigent criminal defendants in Glynn County’s misdemeanor cases is a matter in which the public has an independent interest. Cf. Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 93-94 (129 SCt 1283, 173 LE2d 231) (2009) (explaining in the context of the constitutional right to a speedy trial that a...
8 The record does not indicate who appointed Zeh to this position. Liberties Union Foundation (“ACLU Foundation”)9 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia a civil rights lawsuit against Glynn County, the County’s chief magistrate judge and sheriff, and Zeh, as the “Glynn County Misdemeanor Public Defender.” The lawsuit...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de octubre de 2021
Walker v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la orden de un tribunal de primera instancia que desestima un caso de DUI por falta de impulso procesal cuenta como una desestimación sin perjuicio incluso si el plazo de prescripción ya venció, revocando a la Corte de Apelaciones.
2. It appears that Georgia trial courts have long exercised the authority to dismiss criminal cases for want of prosecution without prejudice. See Grantham v. State, 84 Ga. 559, 560 (11 SE 140) (1889) (noting, in a case affirming the defendant’s conviction for stabbing, that a prior case against the defendant had been “dismissed for want of prosecution”)....
BOGGS, Presiding Justice. We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether a trial court’s order dismissing a criminal case for want of prosecution, which does not say that it is with prejudice to refiling, nevertheless constitutes an impermissible dismissal with prejudice if the applicable statute of limitation has run. We conclude that such a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de febrero de 2021
Lofton v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Hakim Lofton, al dictaminar que la evidencia circunstancial, incluidos los registros telefónicos y de torres celulares, fue suficiente y que la confianza de la policía en la ley entonces vigente para obtener sus registros celulares sin orden judicial no requería descartar la evidencia.
Here, none of the challenged exhibits were written testimony, nor did they derive their evidentiary value solely from the credibility of the makers of the exhibits. See Clarke v. State, 308 Ga. 630, 636 (4) (842 SE2d 863) (2020); Keller, 308 Ga. at 505-506 (9). Instead, they were original documentary evidence and were properly allowed to go out with the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de septiembre de 2021
SCHMITZ v. BARRON, DIRECTOR
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la desestimación de una impugnación electoral en el condado de Fulton por un escaño de la Cámara de Representantes de Georgia, al determinar que el candidato perdedor debía notificar formalmente a su contendiente y no demostró que hubiera actuado con diligencia para lograr esa notificación.
This short time period reflects the [General Assembly’s] strong desire to avoid election uncertainty and the confusion and prejudice which can come in its wake. Certainly, the swift resolution of election contests is vital for the smooth operation of government. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Swain, 281 Ga. at 31 (2). As we noted in Martin, “[t]his...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de junio de 2021
RIOS v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que dos hombres acusados en un tiroteo mortal pueden ser juzgados de nuevo después de que se declarara un juicio nulo cuando surgió un informe balístico recién descubierto durante el juicio, sosteniendo que la doble incriminación no impedía un segundo juicio.
In response, the trial court asked Carter’s counsel “how long [it would] take to get [his] ballistics expert[ ] . . . up to speed on this.” Carter’s counsel responded that he was “unsure if [he could] answer that question” because he would “need to make arrangements” to get “copies of the physical evidence” from the State and because he was “not sure what...
Here, the record shows that the trial court exercised its discretion and considered the relevant circumstances before granting a mistrial. Indeed, when the prosecutor informed the trial court and defense counsel about Burdick’s fourth report, Rios’s counsel said that “the information we’ve just received is vital to our defense” and that “we simply cannot go...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de abril de 2021
Johnson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre del condado de Fulton condenado por asesinato puede ser juzgado de nuevo, al considerar que la evidencia del juicio era legalmente suficiente para que un jurado lo condenara incluso sin corroborar el testimonio de un cómplice.
BOGGS, Justice. This is the fourth appearance of this case before this Court. At a 2014 jury trial, John “Shug” Johnson was found guilty of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Brandon Scott. Johnson’s motion for new trial was granted on the basis of plain error in the jury instructions, and this Court affirmed that...
311 Ga. 221 FINAL COPY S21A0034. JOHNSON v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 8 de septiembre de 2021
Nelson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó el rechazo de la moción de un acusado de asesinato para suprimir evidencia de un teléfono celular y una laptop, dictaminando que su larga reclusión y el hecho de no haber pedido que le devolvieran los dispositivos debilitaron su interés de privacidad a pesar de una demora de dos años.
On January 18, 2018, Stoddard obtained separate warrants to search each of Nelson’s devices for electronic data related to the crimes. On that same day, he submitted a written request for forensic analysis of each device to what is now known as the Cobb Police Department’s Technology Based Crimes Unit (“TBCU”). But more than a year passed before TBCU...
Nelson again moved to suppress the evidence extracted from days from the time of issuance shall be void and shall be returned to the court of the judicial officer issuing the same as ‘not executed.’” 3 The trial court found that it was undisputed that Detective Stoddard relied on no information derived from the data extractions pursuant to the 2018 search...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de junio de 2021
Seals v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un caso penal no es definitivo ni apelable si algún cargo de la acusación ha sido colocado en el 'expediente inactivo' en lugar de ser desestimado, condenado o absuelto.
and remains so unless or until it is returned to the active docket. See OCGA § 15-6-61 (a) (4) (B). See also Howard, 776 F3d at 775- 776. Additionally, although this Court and the Court of Appeals maintain that a dead-docketed case/count is a “pending” case/count, Newman and its progeny also acknowledge that a dead-docketed case/count merely “can be called...
Under our current ruling, whenever a criminal trial results in a conviction on one or more counts and a mistrial on others, the defendant cannot directly appeal his conviction — even when a written disposition has been filed of record — if the defendant’s mistried counts are placed on the dead docket. Instead, in these circumstances, which are common, the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 23 de noviembre de 2021
State v. Houston
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la decisión de un tribunal de habeas corpus de anular las tres declaraciones de culpabilidad por conducir en estado de ebriedad (menor cuantía) de un hombre porque nunca se le informó en su audiencia de declaración de culpabilidad que tenía derecho a un abogado allí.
. . . I’ve got some other cases. You can have a seat, Mr. Houston, but I’m not resetting your case. If you decide you’re not going to do it, you will go back to [State Court] Judge Dixon[’s] trial calendar and if you enter a plea there I’ll do whatever the recommendation [is] without the DUI Treatment Court. You have had plenty of time to think about this...
The trial court also asked Houston if he had any questions about his rights; Houston said that he did not. When the trial court gave Houston the opportunity to ask questions, he asked only about serving his custodial sentence, including whether he could serve it on weekends and whether he would get credit for time served. Houston then pleaded guilty to a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de agosto de 2021
Vivian v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de Nathaniel Vivian por asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave, robo a mano armada y delitos relacionados en la muerte a tiros de Daniel Zeitz, rechazando sus reclamos de autorrepresentación y asistencia ineficaz de abogado, pero devolvió el caso para una nueva sentencia porque fue condenado indebidamente por dos cargos de asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave por una sola víctima.
The medical examiner testified that Zeitz suffered a gunshot wound to the right side of his neck, resulting in his death, and the gun found in Vivian’s car was later matched to a shell casing found at the scene of Zeitz’s shooting. 1. Vivian first asserts that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on his request for new counsel and advise...
(d) Vivian also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in 5 Although Vivian did not ask his trial counsel at the motion hearing why she chose not to challenge the jury panels, trial counsel testified, in response to questioning by the State, that at the time of Vivian’s trial, which was before Ricks was issued, she had never heard of a successful...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de febrero de 2021
Jordan v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre que se declaró culpable de asesinato en el curso de un delito grave a mitad de su juicio tenía el derecho absoluto de retirar esa declaración antes de la sentencia, y revocó la negativa del tribunal de primera instancia a permitírselo.
3 A trial court can also protect against such manipulation by promptly sentencing a defendant. And if the defendant pleads guilty during trial, the trial court can hold the jury until the defendant is sentenced. 4 Jordan also argues that the judgment is void because his indictment was fatally defective in that the felony murder count averred neither the...
attached and at any time during trial, as well as in the form of a motion in arrest of judgment after a verdict in the same term of court.” (citations and punctuation omitted)).
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de octubre de 2021
Steen v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato con malicia de un hombre del condado de Burke, pero devolvió su caso al tribunal de primera instancia porque nunca resolvió su reclamo de que fue indebidamente excluido de las conferencias en el estrado durante la selección del jurado.
2. We next address Steen’s right-to-be-present claim. Since the earliest years of this Court, we have held that the Georgia Constitution guarantees [a] criminal defendants[ ] the right to be present, and see and hear, all the proceedings which are had against him on the trial before the Court. It also has long been established that proceedings at which the...
In an amended motion for new trial filed by Steen’s second appellate counsel in April 2019, Steen’s right-to-be-present claim was raised for the first time. During one of the four hearings on Steen’s motion for new trial, trial counsel testified that Steen was present at counsel table during the bench conferences at issue and never indicated that he wished...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de junio de 2021
Thomas v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de Tony Thomas por asesinato y actividad de pandillas en dos tiroteos desde vehículos en el condado de DeKalb, rechazando las alegaciones de que los fiscales ocultaron antecedentes penales de testigos y de que su abogado o el juez de primera instancia debieron señalar esos antecedentes al jurado.
(b) The trial court’s failure to give sua sponte a jury instruction on impeachment by a prior conviction. As with his related ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Thomas contends that the evidence of Wilson’s voluntary manslaughter plea warranted a jury instruction on impeachment by a prior conviction and that, without an instruction, the jury was not...
3. Thomas contends that his trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to make a timely motion to sever counts and to object to certain testimony. (a) Failure to make a timely motion to sever counts. Thomas contends that his counsel performed deficiently by failing to file a timely motion to sever the trial based on the two separate incidents and that...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de junio de 2021
Moon v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó las condenas por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Chatham porque la jueza de primera instancia removió indebidamente a una jurado disidente durante las deliberaciones sin una base legal sólida para hacerlo.
a jury is deadlocked. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mills v. State, 308 Ga. 558, 560 (2) (842 SE2d 284) (2020). See also Hill v. State, 263 Ga. 37, 41 (8) (427 SE2d 770) (1993) (A trial court has an obligation to investigate the need to excuse an allegedly incapacitated juror, and this is “especially true where the jury has begun its deliberations...
7 Because a juror’s verdict must be based on the evidence in the case, a trial court may excuse for cause a prospective juror who has formed a fixed opinion as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence prior to hearing any evidence in a case. See Miller v. State, 275 Ga. 730, 736 (5) (571 SE2d 788) (2002). But, once a juror has heard the evidence, the arguments...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de mayo de 2021
ALLEN v. DAKER (And Vice Versa)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que a Waseem Daker, condenado por el asesinato de Karmen Smith, nunca se le advirtió válidamente sobre su derecho a un abogado para su apelación posterior a la condena ni renunció a él, por lo que debe recibir un nuevo proceso de apelación.
2. Daker’s right-to-appellate-counsel claim. In this Court, Daker contends that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel for the direct appeal of his criminal convictions, specifically arguing that he did not waive his right to appellate counsel and that the determination of his indigency status for appointment of counsel was improperly delegated...
Although Daker expressly waived his right to counsel for trial, the record does not show that he ever expressly or functionally waived his right to appellate counsel. To the contrary, the record shows that after he was convicted, Daker repeatedly requested counsel to assist him in his motion for new trial proceeding and direct appeal. (a) Express waiver. In...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de marzo de 2021
Duke v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que Ryan Duke, el hombre acusado del asesinato de Tara Grinstead en 2005, sigue siendo indigente aunque sus abogados trabajen gratis, y que la ley estatal permite que abogados pro bono contraten con agencias públicas de defensa para obtener expertos e investigadores financiados por el estado.
18 Another state appellate court decision holding that the federal Constitution does not require providing experts to indigent criminal Thankfully, we need not answer definitively today the question of whether Duke’s pro bono representation means he is not constitutionally entitled to publicly funded expert defense services. But it may well be that Duke is...
16 It seems to me that the State could make a pretty good case that the assertion of each of these rights creates inefficiencies of one kind or another. Or, at least, that requiring their waivers would generate more efficiencies than the State’s attempt in this case to force Duke to accept state-funded counsel when he doesn’t want it. Many of the most...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de noviembre de 2021
Schoicket v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia resolvió que una mujer que se declaró culpable de asesinato con circunstancias agravantes no puede usar su apelación fuera de plazo concedida por el tribunal como una vía para también presentar una moción tardía de retiro de su declaración de culpabilidad, aunque corrigió un error en su sentencia por un cargo separado.
19 See OCGA §§ 5-5-20; 5-5-21; Felts v. State, 311 Ga. 547, 550 n.6 (858 SE2d 708) (2021); Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 524, 527-528 (2) (832 SE2d 392) (2019). 20 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (83 SCt 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963); Mitchell v. State, 307 Ga. 855, 860-863 (2) (b) (838 SE2d 847) (2020); Hall v. State, 286 Ga. 358, 360-361 (3) (687 SE2d 819)...
8 Ironically, Ponder defended its holding as bringing finality far sooner than a habeas proceeding would, because an ineffectiveness claim could “be promptly resolved by the judge who presided over the trial as opposed to having it resolved by a habeas corpus court somewhere down the road.” Ponder, 260 Ga. at 842 (1) (citation and punctuation omitted). But...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de junio de 2021
Lewis v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de Jeffrey Lewis por asesinato con agravantes, dictaminando que su confesión grabada en la cárcel fue admitida correctamente porque no se le prometió ningún beneficio y nunca pidió claramente un abogado.
Especially “when viewed in context,” Brooks v. State, 271 Ga. 698, 699 (523 SE2d 866) (1999), we cannot say that a reasonable officer under the circumstances would have interpreted Lewis’s statements to be “clear and unambiguous” expressions of a desire to have counsel present during his April 24 phone call from jail, Taylor, 304 Ga. at 48. That context...
To be voluntary, a statement must be free and willingly given without coercion, duress, threats, use of violence, fear of injury, or any suggestions or promises of leniency or reward. A statement induced by the slightest hope of benefit or the remotest fear of injury is not voluntary. To be voluntary, a statement must be the product of a free will and not...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.