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:2023 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 425 pasajes en 174 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 31 de mayo de 2023
Knox v. State of Georgia
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que una demanda de cinco profesores del Sistema Universitario que impugnaba la ley de 'armas en el campus' de Georgia de 2017 quedó sin objeto, porque la propia Junta de Regentes adoptó una política que permite armas en el campus conforme a esa ley.
5 See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. VIII (“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”); Ga. L. 1994, p. 1012, § 4 (adding public or private technical schools, vocational schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions...
10 In pertinent part, OCGA § 16-11-127.1 (c) (2017) as amended provided: The provisions of this Code section [making it unlawful for any person to carry or possess any weapon while within a school safety zone, at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school] shall not apply to: ... (20) (A) Any weapons carry license holder...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de septiembre de 2023
Roberts v. Cuthpert
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre que demandó con éxito para obtener una licencia de portación de armas puede buscar el reembolso de sus honorarios de abogado por parte de la jueza de sucesiones que le negó la licencia, porque la ley de Georgia renuncia a la inmunidad soberana para este tipo de reclamos.
2. The General Assembly waived sovereign immunity when it enacted OCGA § 16-11-129 (j). “The doctrine of sovereign immunity, as enshrined in our Constitution, bars suits against the State and its employees in their official capacities unless a statute or the Constitution itself specifically waives that immunity.” State v. SASS Group, 315 Ga. 893, 893 (885...
After receiving the application, a probate judge must direct the appropriate law enforcement agency in the county, to . . . (1) . . . request a fingerprint based criminal history records check from the Georgia Crime Information Center and Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes of determining the suitability of the applicant and return an appropriate...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de septiembre de 2023
Kuhlman v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre condenado por fraude federal de atención médica no puede recuperar sus derechos de portar armas bajo un estatuto limitado de Georgia, pero que la inmunidad soberana de Georgia no bloquea su demanda y que el tribunal de primera instancia debe considerar sus reclamos constitucionales.
1. In 2011, Kuhlman pled guilty in federal court to one count of health care fraud under 18 USC § 1347. In 2014, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison followed by three years of extended supervision that was terminated early in February 2019. In 2021, Kuhlman applied to the Board for relief pursuant to subsection (d) of OCGA § 16-11-131. Under that...
7 One United States Court of Appeals considered the federal statute prior to the 1986 amendment. See United States v. Meldish, 722 F2d 26, 27-28 (2d Cir. 1983). Coleman, 609 F3d 699, 703-706 (II) (A) (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Schultz, 586 F3d 526, 529-530 (II) (A) (1) (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Stanko, 491 F3d 408, 413-419 (II) (8th Cir....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 31 de mayo de 2023
Copeland v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de Matthew Copeland por asesinato en grado de delito grave por disparar a Carlos Glenn, y determinó que el jurado podía rechazar su alegato de defensa propia y que el error de su abogado sobre las reglas de evidencia no cambió el resultado del juicio.
3 It is not clear that Copeland would have been entitled to claim self- defense in the first place. Justification is generally not available as a defense to someone who commits a crime while otherwise engaged in the commission of a felony, see OCGA § 16-3-21 (b) (2), and here, there was undisputed evidence that Copeland was carrying a gun on the day of the...
316 Ga. 452 FINAL COPY S23A0281. COPELAND v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de octubre de 2023
Bowman v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Torry Bowman en un tiroteo en un bar del condado de Fulton, y rechazó sus objeciones a las instrucciones al jurado y al manejo por parte del tribunal de primera instancia de su estipulación sobre una condena penal previa.
PINSON, Justice. Appellant Torry Bowman and his friend, Maurice Goodman, got into an argument in a bar with brothers Alec and Britian Price. They confronted the Price brothers again outside the bar, and Alec was shot and died as a result of his injuries. Bowman was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with Alec’s death.1 1 The shooting...
Each claim fails. Although the State did not focus on theories of party to a crime or conspiracy during the trial, at least slight evi- dence supported the theories, so the trial court was authorized to give them. The instruction that provocation by words alone is not a defense to murder was an accurate statement of the law. Bowman’s through 9. The jury...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de febrero de 2023
Haufler v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de Chad Haufler por asesinato, rechazando sus alegatos de que el jurado debió recibir instrucciones sobre homicidio involuntario y que sus declaraciones a un ayudante del forense debieron suprimirse.
The record shows that, prior to trial, Haufler requested pattern jury charge 2.10.44, “Involuntary Manslaughter, Statutory Definition.”6 Although it is not clear from his written request whether Haufler was seeking a felony or misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter charge, at the various jury charge conferences 6 This pattern charge states: “For involuntary...
315 Ga. 712 FINAL COPY S23A0054. HAUFLER v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de octubre de 2023
Sosebee 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 y la sentencia de cadena perpetua sin libertad condicional de un hombre por una muerte durante una persecución en automóvil, rechazando sus argumentos de que una regla de indulgencia exigía una sentencia más leve y de que su castigo era inconstitucionalmente cruel.
The rule of lenity applies when a statute establishes, or multiple statutes establish, different punishments for the same offense and, consequently, “uncertainty develops as to which penal clause is applicable[.]” Brown v. State, 276 Ga. 606, 608 (2) (581 SE2d 35) (2003) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Peacock v. State, 314 Ga. 709, 723 (5)...
2 See Green v. State, 311 Ga. 238, 242 (1) (857 SE2d 199) (2021) (“When presented with a question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the statute’s plain language, reading the text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the English language would. Thus, when considering the meaning of a statute, we must afford the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de octubre de 2023
Kimbro v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y violación de un hombre del condado de Fulton en un homicidio de 2009 en un motel, resuelto años después mediante una coincidencia de ADN, y rechazó los reclamos sobre la demora del juicio, el alegato final y el desempeño de su abogado.
The evidence presented at trial and summarized above authorized the jury to reasonably infer that Kimbro had sex with Shepherd “forcibly and against her will,” see OCGA § 16-6-1 (a) (defining “rape”), just before he strangled and killed her, see OCGA § 16-5-1 (a) (defining “malice murder”), and that he was therefore guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of rape...
We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny Kimbro’s motion. As discussed above, the court fashioned appropriate, alternative remedies by allowing trial counsel time to interview witnesses and by offering the services of the court’s IT staff. The record shows that during the trial, the court paused the proceedings to provide trial...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de diciembre de 2023
Chambliss v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato en grado de delito grave de un hombre del condado de Monroe por disparar a su novia, rechazando sus alegatos de pruebas insuficientes, errores en las instrucciones al jurado y asistencia letrada ineficaz.
(ii) Chambliss also contends that the trial court should have instructed the jury on felony (or “unlawful act”) involuntary man- slaughter. See OCGA § 16-5-3 (a) (“A person commits the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act when he causes the death of another human being without any in- tention to do so by the commission of...
4 Under OCGA § 16-5-60 (b), [a] person who causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his or her act or omission will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 24 de octubre de 2023
STATE OF GEORGIA v. SISTERSONG WOMEN OF COLOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE COLLECTIVE
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la prohibición del aborto a las seis semanas en Georgia no puede anularse por haber sido inconstitucional al momento de su aprobación solo porque entraba en conflicto con Roe v. Wade, decisión que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos revocó después en Dobbs.
3 As amended, OCGA § 16-12-141 (b) reads: No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if an unborn Act amended OCGA § 31-9B-3 to require a physician who performs an abortion after detecting a heartbeat to report to the Department of Public Health which exception to Section 4’s ban on abortions justified the procedure.4 In 2019, many of the Appellees in...
32 As noted in the majority opinion, the 2019 Act amended OCGA § 16- 12-141 (b), among other provisions, to prohibit abortions “if an unborn child has been determined in accordance with Code Section 31-9B-2 to have a detectable human heartbeat[,]” with specified exceptions. See Majority Op. at 528 (1); Ga. L. 2019, p. 711, § 4. Before the 2019 amendment,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de noviembre de 2023
Regan v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia anuló, según se aplicó, una sentencia por delito grave de abuso sexual infantil, al determinar que un acusado de 17 años debía calificar para una sentencia por delito menor como la de quienes son condenados por abuso sexual infantil agravado contra una víctima de la misma edad.
(c) My disagreement with the majority extends to its assessment of the rationality of the differences articulated in the statutory scheme. Appellant’s actual conduct in this case supported a charge of child molestation, to which he pleaded guilty and for which he was sentenced. If I were to consider my own personal view or the apparent view expressed...
See, e.g., OCGA § 16-6-3 (c) (statutory rape) (“If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”); OCGA § 16-6-5 (c) (enticing a child for indecent purposes) (“If the victim...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 24 de octubre de 2023
Bell v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó la condena de una mujer por el delito grave de contribuir a la dependencia de un menor, al fallar que no había pruebas suficientes de que sus actos causaran la muerte de su hija bebé después de que el novio de la mujer matara a la niña.
5 OCGA § 15-11-2 (22) also defines a “dependent child” as a child who “[h]as been placed for care or adoption in violation of law” or “[i]s without his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian.” The phrase “resulted in the serious injury or death of a child” in OCGA § 16-12-1 (d.1) (1) has not been previously interpreted by this Court. It is well...
317 Ga. 519 FINAL COPY S22G0747. BELL v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de mayo de 2023
O'neal v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de Ryan O'Neal por asesinato en el tiroteo de Joseph Jackson durante un trato de drogas que se convirtió en robo, rechazando sus reclamos sobre pruebas insuficientes, instrucciones al jurado y el desempeño de su abogado.
showed that O’Neal’s phone communicated with Akhemu’s and Quentin’s phones before and after the shooting and communicated with Akhemu’s phone multiple times after Akhemu set up the meeting with Jackson. Phone records also showed that O’Neal’s phone called McCabe’s phone several times after the shooting, when, according to Quentin, Akhemu asked O’Neal to...
(a) O’Neal first contends that the State failed to prove that he killed Jackson with malice aforethought or an intent to kill. “A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.” OCGA § 16-5-1 (a). “The State, of course, must prove malice beyond a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de diciembre de 2023
Beard 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 DeKalb por disparar a su esposa, rechazando reclamos de que las instrucciones al jurado eran defectuosas y de que los errores de su abogado de juicio le costaron un juicio justo.
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to...
3 The involuntary manslaughter statute, OCGA § 16-5-3, says: (a) A person commits the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act when he causes the death of another human being without any intention to do so by the commission of an unlawful act other than a felony. A person who commits the offense of involuntary manslaughter in...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de octubre de 2023
Priester 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 Paulding por un tiroteo fuera de una casa tras una rivalidad de un partido de fútbol americano, y rechazó reclamos sobre la evidencia, instrucciones al jurado faltantes y el desempeño de su abogado.
§ 17-8-58. See also Reese v. State, 317 Ga. 189, 195 (891 SE2d 835) (2023). To succeed on his claims, Priester must prove that all four prongs of the plain error test are met. First, there must be an error or defect—some sort of deviation from a legal rule—that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively waived, by the...
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 7 de febrero de 2023
SILLAH v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó en gran medida las condenas por asesinato de Darnell Sillah y Andrew Murray por matar a un adolescente del condado de Gwinnett, pero dictaminó que dos de las condenas de Sillah por conspiración debieron haberse fusionado con los delitos consumados.
Contrary to the State’s argument, the conspiracy was not “nipped in the bud.” A new conspiracy did not arise simply because the object of the conspiracy — to rob and burglarize Sampleton — was not carried out on December 17. See Waldrip v. State, 267 Ga. 739, 747 (10) (b) (482 SE2d 299) (1997) (“[T]he character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be...
315 Ga. 741 FINAL COPY S22A0939. SILLAH v. THE STATE. S22A1175. MURRAY v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de abril de 2023
Williams 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 Coffee, y rechazó su alegato de que la evidencia de video y de testigos demostraba que actuó en defensa propia al disparar a una víctima que, en ese momento, no estaba armada.
3 OCGA § 16-5-1 (e) (1) provides that “[a] person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.” because it incorrectly concluded that he was a recidivist who was ineligible for parole under OCGA § 17-10-7.4 Appellant further argues that OCGA § 17-10-7 is inapplicable...
316 Ga. 147 FINAL COPY S23A0314. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 7 de noviembre de 2023
In the Matter of W. McCall Calhoun, Jr
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia suspendió al abogado W. McCall Calhoun, Jr. del ejercicio de la abogacía mientras apela sus condenas federales relacionadas con el asalto al Capitolio del 6 de enero de 2021, rechazando su argumento de que un veredicto de un juicio sin jurado no cuenta como condena bajo las reglas del colegio de abogados.
Calhoun argues that the Special Master’s finding that he is in violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (3) is wrong because the Special Master did not analyze whether his misdemeanors involved “moral turpitude” or underlying conduct related to his fitness to practice law. Rule 8.4 (a) (3). Next, Calhoun argues that he cannot be disciplined for committing a felony based...
1. The Facts. In her report, the Special Master laid out the underlying facts as follows. On March 20, 2023, in connection with the January 6, 2021 “breach and siege of the U.S. Capitol” following the 2020 Presidential Election, Calhoun, following a bench trial, was found guilty of the following criminal offenses: (1) 18 USC § 1512 (c) (2) and 18 USC § 2,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de febrero de 2023
Gonzales v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de un hombre por asesinato con delito grave y agresión agravada en la muerte del hijo de tres años de su novia, pero determinó que su condena separada por agresión agravada debió fusionarse con la condena por asesinato.
10 OCGA § 16-5-70 (b) provides that “[a]ny person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such person maliciously causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain.” 11 OCGA § 16-5-24 (a) provides that “[a] person commits the offense of aggravated battery when he or she maliciously causes bodily harm...
The State also presented testimony from two of Samuel’s babysitters, Sandra McPhearson and Shannon Wright. McPhearson testified that in early January 2011 she started babysitting Samuel in her home four days a week while Jocelyn was at work; that on the first day she cared for him, he had two bruises on his cheeks; that on another occasion, she observed...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de enero de 2023
Clark v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de William Clark por asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave, al considerar suficientes las pruebas y las instrucciones al jurado, y aclaró que los tribunales de primera instancia que evalúan la renuncia a los derechos Miranda de un menor deben considerar todas las circunstancias en lugar de una lista fija de nueve factores.
death, either directly or as a party to the crime, while in the commission of an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (c). See also Mathews v. State, 314 Ga. 360, 365 (877 SE2d 188) (2022) (“‘[F]elony murder requires only that the defendant possessed the requisite criminal intent to commit the underlying felony—in this case, aggravated...
315 Ga. 423 FINAL COPY S22A0950. CLARK v. THE STATE.
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.