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:2022 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 282 pasajes en 127 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 30 de junio de 2022
McIver v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó la condena por asesinato en la muerte a tiros de la esposa de Tex McIver, dictaminando que el juez de primera instancia debió permitir que el jurado considerara un cargo menor de homicidio involuntario como delito menor.
(e) What constitutes a “lawful act” under OCGA § 16-5-3 (b). “A ‘crime’ is a violation of a statute of this state in which there is a joint operation of an act or omission to act and intention or criminal negligence.” OCGA § 16-2-1 (a). Conversely, a lawful act is something that is not a crime within the meaning of the laws of this state. Whether a...
A review of selected cases on involuntary manslaughter provides some guidance for determining whether there is slight evidence of the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner to support an instruction on OCGA § 16-5-3 (b). For example, if the uncontradicted evidence shows that the defendant was not in lawful possession of the weapon that caused the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de septiembre de 2022
Jones v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre por un tiroteo fatal en 2015 en Augusta, dictaminando que un casquillo de escopeta hallado en su patio trasero fue incautado legalmente mientras oficiales ejecutaban una orden de arresto válida.
Nevertheless, the undisputed evidence also demonstrates that, at the time the officers went to execute the arrest warrant, they did not have a search warrant for Appellant’s residence. “The Fourth Amendment [to the United States Constitution] proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures, and searches conducted without prior judicial approval are per se...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 30 de junio de 2022
In the Matter of Daniel Kirkland McCall
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia rechazó la propuesta de suspensión de seis meses de un abogado por descuidar a tres clientes, dictaminando que sus alegatos atenuantes, un reembolso no pagado y las condiciones de reincorporación propuestas no respaldaban aceptar el acuerdo tal como se ofrecía.
Looking to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which are to be used in determining the appropriate level of discipline, see In the Matter of Von Mehren, 312 Ga. 345, 348 (862 SE2d 547) (2021), McCall notes that he violated his ethical duties to his clients and the profession, and that under normal circumstances, he knew or should have known...
McCall states that while he recognizes the seriousness of this matter and takes full responsibility for his actions and inactions, he believes that a six-month suspension, nunc pro tunc to May 13, 2019, is appropriate here where all of the conduct in the Bar complaints occurred during the time in which he was in the midst of a psychotic episode and was...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de marzo de 2022
MAYNARD v. SNAPCHAT, INC
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que a la creadora de Snapchat se le puede demandar por diseñar negligentemente su Filtro de Velocidad, rechazando la idea de que un fabricante nunca tiene un deber de seguridad cuando un tercero usa mal un producto de manera intencional o ilegal.
5. Snap and its amici curiae argue that, to the extent that our decisional law does not recognize an exception to a manufacturer’s design duty in every case of intentional, tortious product misuse, Georgia law would be an outlier among American jurisdictions, imposing a significantly greater scope of liability on manufacturers for design defects. We...
In any event, the fact that some manufacturers may have to litigate negligent-design claims involving intentional misuse beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage and may ultimately be liable in proportion to their degree of fault does not offend Georgia public policy. As demonstrated by the Georgia product-liability statute and our decisional law described in...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 4 de octubre de 2022
In the Matter of Trent Lee Coggins
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó la petición de un abogado de Valdosta para una suspensión de seis meses por violaciones de cuenta fiduciaria, retroactiva a cuando dejó de ejercer, y lo reincorporó de inmediato porque el período de suspensión ya había transcurrido.
PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Special Master Jack J. Helms, Jr., who recommends that the Court accept the petition for voluntary discipline filed by respondent Trent Lee Coggins (State Bar No. 173299) pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (c) after the filing of a formal complaint. Coggins asks that the...
Here, the Special Master concluded that Coggins’s misconduct, although certainly serious, was mitigated by a number of considerations that tended to offset or deemphasize the aggravating factors, including his restitution, general acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and lack of any prior disciplinary history. Thus, the Special Master determined that a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 3 de mayo de 2022
Butler v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de Cory Butler por asesinato con malicia en una invasión de vivienda que causó la muerte de Epsie Ewing, rechazando sus reclamos sobre pruebas insuficientes, una renuncia inválida al juicio con jurado y asistencia legal ineficaz.
Here, the record shows that the State initially sought the death penalty in this case, filing a notice of intent (and later an amended notice) to seek the death penalty. On March 13, 2013, Butler and the State entered into a consent agreement, signed by both parties, whereby the State withdrew its notice of intent to seek the death penalty and Butler waived...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 3 de mayo de 2022
Palencia v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la Corte de Apelaciones disculpó indebidamente la omisión de un juez de primera instancia de instruir a los jurados que el testimonio de un cómplice debe ser corroborado, en un caso de invasión de vivienda y violación.
the relationship between the defendant and the witnesses who testified at trial. If there is even slight evidence that could support a finding that a witness was an accomplice and that witness provides testimony that links the defendant to the crime, it is error for the trial court to instruct the jury that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de mayo de 2022
Perkins v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y otros delitos de Andreas Perkins por una invasión de hogar fatal, rechazando cuestionamientos a la evidencia, la negativa de anular el juicio, las fotografías admitidas y el desempeño de su abogado.
Moreover, the jury was authorized to conclude that Perkins was part of the group of men who shot at or toward J. R. and Glover. To that end, the State presented evidence that Perkins and his co- defendants were discussing plans to commit a robbery hours before the crimes; that after the crimes, the same four men were seen running out of Glover’s apartment...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de noviembre de 2022
Eaker v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Cherokee, y rechazó sus alegatos de que su abogado debió haber presentado una defensa de mal funcionamiento accidental del arma y que nueva evidencia justificaba un nuevo juicio.
Eaker also points to his expert’s testimony at the motion-for- new-trial hearing that the five bullet wounds to Audra’s head “arced” “up her head” “in almost a straight line,” as well as his testimony that the three bullets that missed Audra hit the roof, sun visor, and windshield of the car, as evidence that should have alerted trial counsel to the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 8 de marzo de 2022
Junior v. Graham
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que una víctima de un accidente automovilístico puede cobrar honorarios de abogado y gastos de litigio bajo dos leyes distintas de Georgia sin que una recuperación cancele a la otra, revocando a la Corte de Apelaciones de Georgia.
BETHEL, Justice. This case involves the harmonization of two statutory provisions. The first, OCGA § 13-6-11, authorizes a jury in a civil suit to assess as damages certain legal expenses of a prevailing party when that party has specifically requested them and when the jury finds that the opposing party “has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly...
1 The facts relevant to our analysis are not in meaningful dispute. but before trial, Junior served Graham with a document styled “Plaintiff’s Offer to Settle Tort Claim to Defendant Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-68.” Junior’s offer proposed to settle all of his claims against Graham for $600,000. The offer was rejected by operation of law after Graham failed to...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de enero de 2022
Awad v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que los fiscales no pueden decirle al jurado que un sospechoso de DUI se negó a dar una muestra de orina, extendiendo una regla que ya protegía las negativas a someterse a pruebas de aliento bajo la constitución estatal.
The State has the burden of proving that evidence challenged in a motion to suppress is admissible. See Kennebrew v. State, 304 Ga. 406, 409 (1) (819 SE2d 37) (2018) (holding that, on a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search, the State has the burden of showing that an exception to the warrant requirement applies); State v. Hinton,...
OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) (2) (2016). 2 Although it was stipulated below that the police officer asked Awad to submit to a urine test, the record did not reveal the details of how Awad’s urine would have been collected. At oral argument before this Court, however, the State conceded, and Awad agreed, that the collection method at issue here would have involved...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 22 de junio de 2022
Mobley v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Walton, dictaminando que el juez del tribunal de primera instancia hizo bien en negarse a dar una instrucción sobre homicidio voluntario porque recibir un disparo mientras se irrumpe ilegalmente en una casa no es el tipo de provocación que exige la ley.
Mobley contends that the trial court erred by refusing his request for a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of murder.3 Mobley points to the physical evidence showing that Katelyn shot at him six times, “and one of [the shots] hit [him] in the thigh — a very sensitive area of the body,” and to evidence that this “volley of fire”...
Pertinent to Mobley’s argument on appeal, the evidence presented at trial showed the following. At 12:12 a.m. on January 16, 2018, Katelyn Mobley called 911 and reported that her husband, from whom she was separated, had forced himself into her home and taken their nine-year-old daughter and eight-year-old son outside to his truck. She told the dispatcher...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de marzo de 2022
McInerney v. McInerney
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la ley de foro no conveniente de Georgia puede usarse para trasladar o desestimar un caso de divorcio sin violar la regla constitucional del estado que exige que los casos de divorcio se juzguen donde vive el demandado.
Kristine further argues that the court did not require Jeffrey to present evidence and that he failed to do so as to several of the factors enumerated in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), that the burden was improperly shifted onto her as a result, and that the court improperly weighed the statutory factors. We agree that the trial court incorrectly analyzed some of...
In OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), the General Assembly has done just that. The statute sets forth certain circumstances in which a party may move the trial court to transfer to another proper venue in Georgia by invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a). This is a valid exercise of the power granted to the General Assembly under...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 4 de octubre de 2022
Beamon v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de Vernon Beamon por un doble homicidio de 2016 en el condado de DeKalb, al determinar que la evidencia circunstancial que lo vinculaba con los crímenes era suficiente para que el jurado lo condenara, y resolvió que sus dos condenas por armas de fuego no debían fusionarse.
Any person who is on probation as a felony first offender pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 8 of Title 42, who is on probation and was sentenced for a felony under subsection (a) or (c) of Code Section 16-13-2, or who has been convicted of a felony by a court of this state or any other state; by a court of the United States including its territories,...
Any person who shall have on or within arm’s reach of his or her person a firearm . . . during the commission of, or the attempt to commit . . . [a]ny crime against or involving the person of another; . . . [t]he unlawful entry into a building or vehicle; . . . [a] theft from a building or theft of a vehicle; . . . [a]ny crime involving the possession,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 25 de octubre de 2022
In the Matter of William D. Thompson, Jr
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó una petición enmendada de un abogado que buscaba una sanción recíproca por mal manejo de una cuenta fiduciaria en Florida, imponiendo una suspensión de un año retroactiva a enero de 2020.
Based on his misconduct, Thompson was found to have violated the following Florida Bar rules: Rule 4-1.15 (safekeeping property — compliance with trust account rules); Rule 4-8.4 (a) (misconduct — a lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, including through the acts of another); Rule 5-1.1 (governing trust accounts);...
Thompson states that this Court has the authority to impose discipline substantially similar to his one-year Florida suspension, with reinstatement being conditioned on proof of reinstatement in Florida. See In the Matter of Podvin, 304 Ga. 378 (818 SE2d 651) (2018) (imposing 18-month suspension with proof of reinstatement in Florida as reciprocal...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 23 de agosto de 2022
Inquiry Concerning Judge Terrinee Lynette Gundy
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó un acuerdo disciplinario que suspende por 90 días sin pago a la jueza del Tribunal Municipal de Atlanta Terrinee Lynette Gundy y le impone una reprimenda pública por impuntualidad crónica, ausentismo y por mantener ilegalmente detenidos a personas arrestadas.
But Judge Gundy refused, as she was attempting to hurry through the calendar. As the defendants remained in custody for several days, an attorney with the Public Defender’s Office for the City of Atlanta filed an emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to compel the release of the defendants; a hearing in Superior Court on the motion was set...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de diciembre de 2022
BARNHILL v. ALFORD
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que una abuela podía seguir solicitando visitas con su nieta incluso después de que la madrastra de la niña la adoptara, y confirmó que el estándar de prueba clara y convincente de la ley de visitas de abuelos es constitucional.
As discussed above, in the Barnhills’ motion attacking the constitutionality of OCGA § 19-7-3 (c) (1), (c) (3), and (c) (5), the Barnhills argue that these paragraphs are unconstitutional on their face because they: (1) ignore the best interests of the child; (2) violate the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and...
OCGA § 19-7-3 (c) (1) provides in pertinent part that the court may grant any family member of the child reasonable visitation rights if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the health or welfare of the child would be harmed unless such visitation is granted and if the best interests of the child would be served by such visitation. The mere...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 8 de marzo de 2022
McEntyre v. Sams East, Inc
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que cualquiera que ayude a cargar un vehículo, no solo el conductor, tiene el deber legal de asegurar bien la carga, y puede ser demandado por negligencia si se incumple ese deber y alguien resulta herido como consecuencia.
(b) No person shall operate or load for operation, on any public road, any vehicle with any load unless such load and any covering thereon is securely fastened so as to prevent such covering or load from: (1) Becoming loose, detached, or in any manner becoming a hazard to other users of the public road[.] In considering the meaning of this statute, we must...
The question posed by the district court assumes that the person assisting with the loading is not also the operator of the vehicle. The phrase “[n]o person shall . . . load for operation” does not limit the duty imposed by the statute to secure a load and any covering thereon to the operator of the vehicle or a person primarily responsible for loading. “No...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de abril de 2022
Davenport v. Ward, Comr
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la condena por agresión agravada de un hombre del condado de Floyd debió haberse fusionado con su condena por robo a mano armada porque ambos cargos surgieron del mismo robo a mano armada de un comprador de Kroger a punta de pistola.
[Roebuck] said he popped the trunk release lever, and then he turned to open his door. It was at that time, as soon as he turned, he noticed a black male, [Davenport], in front of him with a gun pointed at him. [Roebuck] said he looked at the gun, and [Davenport] said, “Yeah, it’s loaded.” [Roebuck] said the only other statement that [Davenport] made was,...
Davenport filed a timely notice of appeal and a timely application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. On September 21, 2021, this Court granted Davenport’s application as to the merger claim.4 2. The State concedes the merger error alleged by Davenport, and we agree that both the trial court and the habeas court erred in their determinations...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 8 de marzo de 2022
Burns v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que los cambios de 2016 a las leyes de notificación al gran jurado para oficiales de policía son procesales, no sustantivos, por lo que se aplicaron a la acusación de 2018 de un oficial de Atlanta aunque el tiroteo ocurrió antes de que la ley cambiara.
(h) At any time during the presentation of evidence or during deliberations, the grand jury may amend the indictment or instruct the district attorney to cause a new indictment to be drawn as in any other case. In such case, a copy of the amendment or new indictment, if it relates to the accused public official, shall be provided to the accused public...
because the trial court reached the right result, we affirm the court’s judgment. See Merchant Law Firm v. Emerson, 301 Ga. 609, 614 (1) (c) (800 SE2d 557) (2017) (affirming a trial court’s judgment as “right for any reason”). As an initial matter, we note that the framing of this case as one about the retroactive application of the 2016 amendments is...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.