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:2020 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 439 pasajes en 232 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de febrero de 2020
Johnson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un probando por delito grave acusado de asesinato aún puede alegar defensa propia si su posesión del arma que usó estaba a su vez justificada conforme a la Ley de Protección de Porte Seguro de Georgia, y devolvió el caso al tribunal de primera instancia.
(“OCGA § 16-3-21 (b) (2) applies to all felonies and, although it does not completely eliminate the possibility of a justification defense to felony murder, such a defense requires the jury to find that the underlying felony was justified.”). See also Woodard, 296 Ga. at 814 (3) (b) n.10. The question presented in a case like this one, therefore, is not...
5 Prior to the enactment of the Safe Carry Protection Act, and in the absence of any statute specifically providing a justification defense for crimes involving the unlawful possession or carrying of firearms, this Court adopted a “sudden emergency” standard to identify the circumstances in which such possession or carrying would be lawful. See Cauley v....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de marzo de 2020
State v. Remy
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre que afirmó haber disparado a alguien en defensa propia aún podía solicitar inmunidad de procesamiento incluso después de que su primer juicio terminara en un juicio nulo, y devolvió el caso para determinar si su condición de condenado por delito grave cambia el resultado.
6In addition to amending OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in 2014, the General Assembly enacted OCGA § 16-11-138, which provides that “[d]efense of self or A person is justified in threatening or using force against another, or in engaging in conduct that is otherwise prohibited under Title 16, Chapter 11, Article 4, Part 3 of the Code, when and to the extent that he or...
2 A grand jury returned the second indictment on April 27, 2018. Counts 6 and 7 of that indictment both alleged a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Count 6 was listed as a predicate felony for one of the felony murder counts, while Count 7 was described as “alleg[ing] a separate and distinct offense from that alleged in Count 6 of this...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 24 de agosto de 2020
Brooks 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 Fulton, pero anuló un cargo por armas de fuego porque el estado nunca probó que su delito grave anterior involucrara un arma, y devolvió ese cargo para que se dicte nueva sentencia.
2 A cell phone forensic expert testified that Brooks’ cell phone made six calls to Tinch that morning. The medical examiner testified that Tinch was shot twice from behind, in the head and in the lower body, and that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head. Gay identified Brooks from a photo lineup, and Brooks was arrested in Ohio approximately...
(1) Any crime against or involving the person of another; (2) The unlawful entry into a building or vehicle; (3) A theft from a building or theft of a vehicle; (4) Any crime involving the possession, manufacture, delivery, distribution, dispensing, administering, selling, or possession with intent to distribute any controlled substance as provided in Code...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de septiembre de 2020
Edvalson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre del condado de Gwinnett, condenado por 11 cargos separados de posesión de pornografía infantil, debió haber recibido una sola condena, ya que la posesión simultánea de varias imágenes constituye un solo delito según la ley.
5 The State concedes that the Court of Appeals erred in this regard. search warrant, the police found four firearms in Coates’ residence. Coates was convicted and sentenced on four separate counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the term “any firearm” found in OCGA § 16-11-131 (b) “was...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de diciembre de 2020
Nuckles v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un video de cámara oculta en la habitación de un paciente de un asilo de ancianos puede usarse como prueba contra una enfermera acusada en su muerte, porque el paciente contaba como ocupante de la propiedad y la enfermera no tenía una expectativa razonable de privacidad mientras trabajaba allí.
to Suppress/Motion in Limine” seeking to exclude the video recording taken in Dempsey’s room, asserting that, because she did not consent to the video recording, it was made in violation of OCGA § 16-11-62 (2).6 That subsection provides that it is unlawful for [a]ny person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to...
9 Generally, the first step in determining whether the video recording was made in violation of OCGA § 16-11-62 (2) would be to consider whether it was made in a “private place,” as that term was defined at the time of the 1. In analyzing this issue, “we first look to the text [of OCGA § 16-11-62 (2) (B),] because a statute draws its meaning from its text.”...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 12 de noviembre de 2020
Casey v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó que la evidencia era suficiente en un caso de asesinato en el condado de Lowndes, pero determinó que el juez de primera instancia nunca realizó la revisión independiente requerida al ponderar una moción de nuevo juicio.
1 The crimes occurred on January 13, 2013. Casey was indicted by a Lowndes County grand jury on April 26, 2013, for malice murder (Count 1); felony murder (Count 2); aggravated assault (Count 3); possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 4); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 5). A jury trial was held on January...
2 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SCt 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966). Following an autopsy, the forensic pathologist determined that a gunshot wound to the head caused Bradley’s death and ruled the death a homicide. The entrance wound, located on the left side of the back of Bradley’s head, had a partial muzzle imprint, meaning that the gun’s muzzle...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de enero de 2020
Chavez v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y actividad de pandillas de un hombre del condado de Fulton, pero revocó su condena por posesión de arma de fuego como persona en libertad condicional de primer delincuente porque su libertad condicional ya había vencido cuando ocurrió el tiroteo.
5 This subsection has since been amended. See Ga. L. 2018, pp. 550, 578, § 4-4. But the relevant language remains unchanged. 6 OCGA § 16-11-131 (f) now reads: Any person sentenced as a first offender pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 8 of Title 42 or sentenced pursuant to subsection (a) or (c) of Code Section 16-13-2 and subsequently discharged without court...
307 Ga. 804 FINAL COPY S19A1573. CHAVEZ v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 12 de noviembre de 2020
Morris v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato con delito grave (felony murder) de un hombre del condado de Clarke, al determinar que la evidencia presentada en el juicio era más que suficiente para que el jurado rechazara su alegato de legítima defensa.
MELTON, Chief Justice. Following an August 6-10, 2018 jury trial, Tommy Lee Morris was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in connection with the shooting death of Tony Foster.1 On appeal, Morris contends only that the evidence 1 On May 23, 2017, Morris was indicted by a Clarke County grand jury for malice murder...
When evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation and emphasis omitted.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de septiembre de 2020
Eggleston v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato mediante delito grave de un hombre del condado de Stewart por matar a su vecino, al determinar que el testimonio directo y las pruebas forenses le dieron al jurado suficiente base para condenarlo más allá de toda duda razonable.
2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults . . . [w]ith a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury . . . .” 3 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (1) provides,...
In July 2015, Eggleston went before the judge again to note that Byrd was late on his rent and to request a dispossessory warrant. Byrd was served with a dispossessory warrant on July 6. timely notice of appeal on February 4, 2020, and the case was docketed in this Court to the August 2020 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs. In response, Byrd...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de septiembre de 2020
Welch v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de Todd Welch por asesinato y agresión agravada derivadas de un tiroteo de 2014 en el condado de Clayton, pero ordenó anular dos de sus sentencias porque el tribunal de primera instancia no las había fusionado correctamente.
Welch was also convicted on two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, Counts 19 and 20, relating to one victim, Brown. [W]here multiple crimes are committed together during the course of one continuous crime spree, a defendant may be convicted once for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime as to every...
309 Ga. 875 FINAL COPY S20A1010. WELCH v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de agosto de 2020
Griffin v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Antonio Griffin, al determinar que su abogado no fue ineficaz por permitir que un testigo declarara sobre una llamada telefónica grabada, ya que ningún tribunal había dictaminado antes que ese testimonio fuera inadmisible.
(a) Nothing in Code Section 16-11-62 shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. (b) After obtaining the consent required by this subsection, the telephonic conversations or...
The only case that Griffin cites directly in support of his argument that Grant’s testimony was inadmissible is London v. State, 333 Ga. App. 332 (775 SE2d 787) (2015). But that decision involved only the admissibility of a recording of a conversation and thus could not have held anything about the admissibility of testimony about a conversation. Id. at...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 8 de septiembre de 2020
Marshall v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de Terry Marshall por asesinato e intento de asesinato, pero encontró errores de fusión del tribunal de primera instancia, anulando una condena por arma de fuego y su sentencia.
MCMILLIAN, Justice. Appellant Terry Marshall appeals his convictions for the malice murder of Marshal Tucker, the attempted murder of Latonia Patterson, and other related crimes.1 Marshall contends that the 1 The crimes occurred on May 19, 2014. On August 15, 2014, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Marshall for malice murder (Count 1); attempted murder...
Although the trial court further sentenced Marshall to life 7 Marshall’s argument regarding recidivist sentencing does not affect his remaining convictions. His 15-year consecutive sentence for possession of a firearm was mandated under OCGA § 16-11-133 (b), without regard to his prior criminal history, and his conviction for the lesser included offense of...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de abril de 2020
Frazier v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave de un hombre del condado de Washington, al determinar que los jurados podían razonablemente concluir que fue parte de un intento de robo a mano armada que llevó al tiroteo fatal de su cómplice.
To convict Appellant of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, the State was not required to prove that he personally fired the shot that killed Griner, only that Appellant was a party to the crimes, meaning that he intentionally aided or abetted in the commission of the crimes or intentionally advised, encouraged,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de octubre de 2020
Glenn v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que el derecho de derecho común de Georgia a resistir un arresto ilegal también permite que una persona use fuerza proporcional contra la propiedad del gobierno, como un vehículo policial, mientras intenta escapar de una detención ilegal.
The third officer testified that Glenn became “dead weight and resistant” as officers took him to a patrol car and tried to put him in through the rear driver side door. An officer reached in from the passenger side and pulled Glenn into the car. Glenn kicked against the driver side door and fell out on the passenger side, landing on the officer who had...
8 OCGA § 16-11-36 (b) provides: Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de junio de 2020
GARDHIGH v. THE STATE (And Vice Versa)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por homicidio voluntario de un hombre del condado de Floyd por golpear hasta la muerte a su exjefe por salarios impagos, y rechazó el intento del Estado de que se le condenara por asesinato con circunstancias agravantes (felony murder) en su lugar.
2. Before trial, Appellant moved for immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2, claiming that he acted in self-defense after Grady lunged at him. The evidence presented by the State at the hearing on the immunity motion was essentially consistent with the trial evidence just summarized in Division 1. However, Appellant also testified at the...
Under OCGA § 16-3-21 (a), a person is justified in using deadly force against another person when he reasonably believes that “such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself.” OCGA § 16-3-24.2 says in pertinent part that “[a] person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21 . . . shall be immune from...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de julio de 2020
Middleton v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia resolvió que un hombre condenado tanto por secuestrar un vehículo como por recibir ese mismo vehículo robado no puede mantener legalmente ambas condenas, porque los dos veredictos se contradicen entre sí. La corte también sostuvo que él no necesitaba objetar en el juicio para plantear el problema más adelante.
The common law crime of theft by receiving was codified in Georgia in the Code of 1833, §§ 28 and 29, which distinguished between the principal thief and the subsequent receiver: Sec. 28. If any person shall buy or receive any goods, chattels, money, or other effects, that shall have been stolen or feloniously taken from another, knowing the same to be...
4 See Code 1863, §§ 4382, 4383; Code 1868, §§ 4420, 4421; Code 1873, §§ 4488, 4489; Code 1882, §§ 4488, 4489; Penal Code 1895, §§ 171, 172; Penal Code 1910, §§ 168, 169; Code 1933, §§ 26-2620, 26-2621; Code 1933, § 26-1806. Georgia courts held that a person could not be convicted for both taking and receiving the same property. See Minor v. State, 58 Ga....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de agosto de 2020
Brown v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó una condena por asesinato de un segundo juicio en el condado de Athens-Clarke, rechazando reclamos sobre una instrucción al jurado defectuosa, fotografías perjudiciales de la víctima y asistencia legal ineficaz.
Our decision in Johnson was based upon our understanding of “the rule of law produced by the combination of OCGA §§ 16-3-21 and 16-11-138.” Johnson, 308 Ga. at 146. But Brown shot Tucker in February 2014, and the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014 — of which OCGA § 16-11-138 was a part — did not become law until July 2014. See Ga. L. 2014, p. 599....
309 Ga. 511 FINAL COPY S20A0782. BROWN v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de febrero de 2020
Kilpatrick 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 Douglas por un tiroteo en una carretera en 1998, rechazando su alegación de legítima defensa y múltiples impugnaciones a las pruebas usadas en su contra, incluidas escuchas telefónicas de la era carcelaria.
Because Appellant must satisfy both prongs, this Court does not need to “approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if [Appellant] makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U. S. at 697. The trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations are reviewed under a clearly erroneous...
308 Ga. 194 FINAL COPY S19A1580. KILPATRICK v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de junio de 2020
Barboza v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y robo a mano armada de un hombre del condado de Cobb, y rechazó sus alegatos de que el juez de primera instancia comentó indebidamente sobre el acuerdo de culpabilidad de un coacusado y de que se admitió indebidamente evidencia de sus delitos previos.
(b) Appellant also argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of Exhibit 158, because it contained references to his other crimes. But even assuming that counsel’s performance was deficient because he failed to object to the exhibit’s references to other crimes, Appellant’s ineffective assistance...
(b) (1) As used in this subsection, the term “serious violent felony” means a serious violent felony as defined in subsection (a) of Code Section 17-10-6.1 [which defines “serious violent felony” to include murder and armed robbery]. (2) Except as provided in subsection (e) of Code Section 17-10-6.1 [which allows the judge to depart from the mandatory...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de noviembre de 2020
State v. COPELAND (Three Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia anuló un fallo que había otorgado inmunidad de procesamiento a tres exdiputados del alguacil del condado de Washington acusados en la muerte de Eurie Lee Martin, y devolvió los casos para un análisis legal adecuado.
We hold that the trial court made factual findings that were inconsistent with its legal conclusions in support of its grants of immunity in favor of Deputies Copeland, Scott, and Howell under OCGA § 16-3-24.2, conflated legal concepts that are relevant to the immunity motion with concepts that are not relevant, made unclear findings of material fact with...
(a) The immunity statute. OCGA § 16-3-24.2 provides that a person is immune from prosecution where he can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he threatened or used force based on a reasonable belief that such threat or force was necessary to defend himself or a third person against another’s imminent use of unlawful force. See OCGA §§...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.