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 382 pasajes en 229 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de octubre de 2020
Henderson 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 Gwinnett, rechazando sus reclamos de que se violaron sus derechos a un juicio rápido y que los errores de su abogado le daban derecho a un nuevo juicio. La corte también revocó un precedente anterior que asumía que tales errores del abogado siempre causan daño.
DNA testing revealed that Stridiron and Henderson’s DNA profiles were on the knife’s handle and that Stridiron’s DNA was on the knife’s blade. The volume of epithelial skin cells found on the knife’s handle matching Henderson was sufficient for the crime lab to secure a full DNA profile. An expert in forensic serology testified that this indicated that...
Henderson contends that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was denied. We disagree. The United States Constitution guarantees that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy 3 We remind litigants that the Court will end its practice of considering sufficiency sua sponte in non-death penalty cases with cases...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de junio de 2020
Burney v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de Terrence Burney por asesinato con malicia en la muerte de un hombre de 76 años del condado de Jones, rechazando reclamos sobre instrucciones al jurado, un juicio retrasado y una jurado que buscó términos legales en internet.
Moreover, Burney merely speculates as to how the medical records would have aided him, and he offers no evidence that anything contained in the medical records might have differed from the testimony about those records or Kitchens’ medical history that was presented at trial. As we have recently discussed, [t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed...
On appeal, Burney argues that the delays in the case prejudiced him because his lengthy incarceration caused him to suffer from heightened anxiety and because the State used the period between his arrest in October 2008 and September 2011 to build a case against him by interviewing his cellmates and executing a plan to elicit incriminating statements from...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de octubre de 2020
Goins v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó por segunda vez la condena por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Gwinnett, al rechazar su renovado reclamo de juicio rápido y no encontrar error reversible en el manejo de la evidencia y una solicitud de juicio nulo por parte del tribunal de primera instancia.
2. Appellant contends that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. That claim, which Appellant raised in a pretrial motion to dismiss his indictment and again in his amended motion for new trial, requires the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law under the two-part framework set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514...
In its ten-page order on remand, the trial court correctly determined that the thirty-two-month delay between Appellant’s arrest and trial was presumptively prejudicial. The court then made detailed factual findings and legal conclusions regarding each of the Barker-Doggett factors, and after balancing the factors, the court ultimately rejected Appellant’s...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de junio de 2020
Redding v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia determinó que un juez del condado de Muscogee nunca analizó adecuadamente si a un hombre condenado por un puñetazo fatal en una barbacoa se le negó su derecho a un juicio rápido, así que devolvió el caso para una decisión adecuada.
3. Redding contends that the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. The record shows that Redding was arrested on September 12, 2016, one week after the incident. Redding was granted a bond on March 2, 2017, but he apparently was unable to post the bond amount...
I overrule the motion on [the speedy trial] because of the violation of probation. The toxicology reports and other documents, police reports they had to accumulate in order to take the case to the grand jury for the charge of murder . . . . The trial court did not enter a written order. A constitutional speedy trial claim is evaluated under a two- part...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de febrero de 2020
Hyden v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y secuestro de un hombre del condado de Franklin en una muerte por golpiza, y rechazó los reclamos de pruebas insuficientes, error judicial, una demora de 15 años en la apelación y asistencia letrada ineficaz.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain Hyden’s conviction for kidnapping with bodily injury under Garza. See Williams, supra, 291 Ga. at 504 (1) (b). 2. Hyden argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to waive its initial closing argument and present its entire argument after Hyden’s closing in violation of former OCGA § 17-8-71 (“After the...
3 With regard to the nearly 15-year delay between Hyden’s trial and the hearing on his motion for new trial, trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that, after filing Hyden’s new trial motion and submitting his bill for services to the trial court, he discussed with the trial judge the possibility of ineffective assistance of counsel...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de enero de 2020
Davis v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de Carlton Davis por asesinato en grado de delito grave, rechazando sus alegatos sobre una declaración forzada, una carta admitida indebidamente y una demora de 14 años en decidir su moción de nuevo juicio.
8 Davis’s argument that the jailers did not testify they had a particularized concern about this letter containing contraband does not amount to evidence that the jailers opened the letter for prosecutorial purposes. pre-trial detainee]”). To the contrary, the Liberty County jail personnel did not even know the identity of the letter’s author or sender when...
“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 (800 SE2d 325) (2017). The four Barker factors include the length of...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 24 de agosto de 2020
Roberts v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que una mujer condenada en un tribunal federal por robar silicona líquida de grado médico aún puede enfrentar cargos estatales de asesinato y agresión por la misma muerte, porque los delitos estatales y federales requerían prueba de hechos distintos.
It is well established that the denial of a constitutional double jeopardy claim is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Patterson v. State, 248 Ga. 875 (287 SE2d 7) (1982). In Patterson, we explained in detail the reasoning for that rule. See id. at 876- 877. But with regard to statutory double jeopardy claims like the one presented here, we...
We now explain why the denial of a timely plea in bar based on a statutory double jeopardy claim is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. In reaching that conclusion, we look to our precedent in Patterson, 248 Ga. 875, where we relied on the reasoning of Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (97 SCt 2034, 52 LE2d 651) (1977), to denial of a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de abril de 2020
Morris v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Darius Morris por un robo con invasión de vivienda en el condado de Fulton, rechazando reclamos sobre una transcripción retrasada del juicio, límites en la selección del jurado, una instrucción al jurado y un tribunal cerrado con llave.
2. Morris argues that he was denied his right to a timely appeal due to the State’s delay in filing a complete transcript of the proceedings in the case. He argues that this delay violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the trial court that it did not....
On January 9, 2017, appellate counsel filed an amended motion for new trial alleging that Morris’s right to a timely appeal had been violated by the failure to provide Volume 4. On November 27, 2017, the State filed a motion for appointment of a successor court reporter to produce a transcript of Volume 4. The court denied that motion on December 7, 2017,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de enero de 2020
Swims 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 Walker, dictaminando que la breve mención de un testigo sobre su tiempo en la cárcel en otro estado no requería la anulación del juicio.
2. In his only enumeration of error, Swims contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after his character was improperly placed into evidence during Chelsey Owens’s testimony. When the State asked Owens if Swims offered any reasoning for why he wanted to escape, Owens responded: I asked [Swims] why would he do that, I said, why...
307 Ga. 651 FINAL COPY S19A1427. SWIMS v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de marzo de 2020
Mattox v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de un hombre que ayudó a enterrar a dos hermanos del condado de Evans asesinados por drogas, rechazando sus alegatos de pruebas insuficientes, defensa ineficaz y demora en la apelación.
3 Mattox also claims on appeal that the alleged mischaracterizations constitute reversible error in themselves. But “the defendant’s failure to object to the State’s closing argument waives his right to rely on the alleged impropriety of that argument as a basis for reversal.” Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883, 885 (2) (725 SE2d 305) (2012) (citation and...
BLACKWELL, Justice. Charles “Dre” Mattox was tried by an Evans County jury and convicted of murder and other crimes in connection with the fatal shootings of Dewayne Bacon and John Bacon.1 Mattox appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that his due process...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de mayo de 2020
Walker 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 de Columbus por matar a su novia, rechazando sus reclamos sobre jurisdicción, decisiones probatorias y el desempeño de sus abogados.
2 The Court of Appeals has repeated the quoted language from Tolbert and White in a number of cases. See Branner v. State, ___ Ga. App. ___, ___ (___ SE2d ___) (2020) (quoting Dos Santos, in turn quoting White); Black v. State, 349 Ga. App. 111, 115 (825 SE2d 498) (2019) (physical precedent only) (quoting Tolbert and White); Cason v. State, 348 Ga. App....
3 The only exception is In the Interest of A. B., which quoted Tolbert only in the dissent. See 350 Ga. App. at 582 (McFadden, P. J., dissenting). State, 348 Ga. App. 828, 829-830 (823 SE2d 357) (2019) (vacating order denying the defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed during the same term of court in which sentence was entered and...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 4 de mayo de 2020
Dawson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas relacionadas con un asesinato de un hombre del condado de Fulton, rechazando argumentos sobre pruebas de oídas, una confesión supuestamente inducida y una demora de nueve años en resolver su apelación.
Here, by contrast, when Dawson asked Detective McGowan, “how long am I gonna go [to prison]?” Detective McGowan replied, “I don’t know; I can’t decide for you where you go or how long you go there for. All I can do for you is take this information, take your version of the story to the folks I turn this file into . . . .” Given this and other...
10 These same four factors are commonly referenced as the “Barker- Wingo factors.” See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (92 SCt 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972). 260 (626 SE2d 102) (2006)). Dawson’s claim here fails because he mistakenly relies on inapposite speedy-trial cases to argue that prejudice is presumed in the context of post-conviction appellate delay. In...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de octubre de 2020
State v. Wheeler
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia desechó la apelación del Estado en un caso de homicidio en el condado de Fulton porque los fiscales presentaron una certificación obligatoria más de cuatro meses después del plazo, lo que significa que la corte nunca llegó a examinar la disputa sobre las pruebas.
4. What Jurisdictional Requirements Does OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) Impose? (a) OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) (A). At the outset, we note that OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) is focused on timeliness, and indeed on expedition. Unlike the nine other paragraphs contained in § 5-7-1 (a), paragraph (a) (5) includes multiple specific timing requirements, including that the State must...
(b) OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) (B). An appeal under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) is also predicated on a requirement contained in paragraph (a) (5) (B). See § 5-7-1 (a) (5) (an appeal may be taken from a qualifying trial court order “if. . . (A) . . . the notice of appeal . . . is filed within two days of such order . . . and” (B) the State makes the proper...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de abril de 2020
Keller v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato en la modalidad de delito grave (felony murder) de un hombre de Columbus que golpeó hasta la muerte al hijo de dos años de su exesposa, rechazando alegaciones de asistencia legal ineficaz, errores del juicio y parcialidad judicial.
3. Keller contends the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion for a continuance. This contention is without merit. OCGA § 17-8-22 provides in pertinent part: “All applications for continuances are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court and, if not expressly provided for, shall be granted or refused as the ends of justice may require....
On March 27, Keller’s case was called for trial. The State announced that it was ready to proceed, but Keller’s trial counsel stated that she was not ready and urged the court to grant her motion for continuance, contending that she had not received certain medical records from the State until “I believe it was in late October.” She acknowledged that she...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 24 de agosto de 2020
Harris v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Robert Harris y rechazó sus reclamos de asistencia ineficaz y aplazamiento, pero determinó que el tribunal de primera instancia lo sentenció incorrectamente por separado por agresión agravada y agresión con lesión agravada contra la misma víctima.
3. Harris next asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his trial counsel’s motion for continuance. Under OCGA § 17-8-22, “[a]ll applications for continuances are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court and, if not expressly provided for, shall be granted or refused as the ends of justice may require.” This Court will...
At the pretrial hearing on September 19, 2014, Harris’s trial counsel made an oral motion for reconsideration of his continuance request, asserting that he was still “unprepared,” as he had been provided only 20 days to get ready for trial. The trial court denied the motion, noting that the trial date had been specially set and Harris had already been...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 27 de enero de 2020
Mann v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y crueldad hacia menores de un hombre que hirió mortalmente al hijo de siete años de su prometida, rechazando reclamos sobre las instrucciones al jurado, su confesión y la estrategia de su abogado.
(d) Mann contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance. Again, his claim is without merit. In June 2014, Mann retained new trial counsel and was granted a continuance to afford his new counsel time to prepare for trial. Mann filed a second motion to continue in September 2014. The trial court held a hearing on this motion on...
deal of latitude in scheduling trials. Not the least of their problems is that of assembling the witnesses, lawyers, and jurors at the same time, and this burden counsels against continuances except for compelling reasons.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). (e) In his final claim of trial court error, Mann challenges the admission of post-autopsy...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de febrero de 2020
State v. Bryant
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia devolvió un caso de asesinato a un juez del condado de Chatham tras determinar que su orden que excluía pruebas por violaciones de divulgación era demasiado confusa para revisarla, porque no estaba claro si realmente encontró que la fiscalía actuó de mala fe.
PETERSON, Justice. In this murder case, the State has brought an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order excluding certain evidence on the basis that the evidence was not produced until just over a month before trial, or had not been produced at all, in violation of the trial court’s pre-trial scheduling order. The trial court’s order can stand only...
1 Bryant filed a motion to sever his trial from that of Carrillo, but the record before this Court does not reflect a ruling on that motion. motion hearing held on September 4, 2018, Bryant’s counsel indicated he was still missing discovery, explaining that he was unable to proceed with some of his motions due to the missing materials. The State claimed...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 24 de agosto de 2020
Clay 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 Gwinnett que disparó a su vecina a través de la puerta de un motel, y rechazó sus reclamos pro se sobre errores del juicio, testimonio falso y demora en la apelación.
Regarding Robertson’s photo lineup identification, Clay argues that the identification should have been suppressed because the evidence at trial showed that Robertson identified Clay from a photo lineup over a month after the crime after seeing news reports of Clay’s arrest. However, a challenge such as this goes to the weight of the evidence, not the...
FINAL COPY 309 Ga. 593 S20A0727. CLAY v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 12 de noviembre de 2020
ALLEN v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de dos hombres que robaron una tienda de conveniencia en Summerville y mataron al empleado, al determinar que cualquier error probatorio en el juicio fue inofensivo dada la abrumadora evidencia de culpabilidad.
another robbery even when considered in combination with McCray’s statements implicating Allen in this robbery. See Davenport v. State, 309 Ga. 385, 391 (3) (846 SE2d 83) (2020) (cumulative effect of presumed errors in admitting other acts evidence and hearsay evidence did not collectively harm the defendant where the evidence of guilt was very strong); see...
[t]he right is waived if the defendant personally waives it in court; if counsel waives it at the defendant’s express direction; if counsel waives it in open court while the defendant is present; or if counsel waives it and the defendant subsequently acquiesces in the waiver. Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). McCray’s claim fails for several reasons....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de julio de 2020
Davenport v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Brian Colby Davenport en la muerte de Debora Lynn Abney, al considerar que la evidencia era suficiente y que cualquier error probatorio fue inofensivo, y anunció además que dejará de revisar automáticamente la suficiencia de la evidencia en apelaciones de asesinato sin pena de muerte.
(b) We cannot now identify a compelling reason to retain our current practice of sua sponte review of the sufficiency of the evidence in cases in which the appellant is not sentenced to death, and there are good reasons to abandon that practice. Murder now carries a minimum sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole, a long sentence indeed....
309 Ga. 385 FINAL COPY S20A0035. DAVENPORT v. THE STATE.
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.