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:2021 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 344 pasajes en 177 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 · 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...
310 Ga. 770 FINAL COPY S20A1101. LOFTON v. THE STATE.
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.
PETERSON, Justice. This Court granted murder defendant Corey Nelson’s application for interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. At issue is evidence extracted from his cell phone and other electronic devices pursuant to search warrants. Nelson argues that the delay of more than two years between the date on which...
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...
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 · 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”)....
In State v. Grimes, 194 Ga. App. 736 (392 SE2d 727) (1990), the defendant was charged with criminal trespass. When the case was called for trial, the State moved for a continuance, which the trial court granted. See id. at 736. On the continued trial date, the State was not ready, so the court dismissed the case. See id. The Court of Appeals affirmed,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de octubre de 2021
Parrott v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó una nueva sentencia de cinco años de prisión para un hombre condenado por huir de la policía como delito grave, y rechazó sus alegatos de que la ley de sentencias discrimina a los acusados pobres y de que volver a sentenciarlo dos veces violó las protecciones contra el doble enjuiciamiento.
Decided October 5, 2021. OCGA § 40-6-395 (b) (5); constitutional question. Paulding Superior Court. Before Judge Bucci. Hunter J. Rodgers, Keegan C. Gary, for appellant. Matthew W. Rollins, Acting District Attorney, A. Brett Williams, Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General,...
312 Ga. 580 FINAL COPY S21A0753. PARROTT v. THE STATE.
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.
Under the manifest necessity standard, “a mistrial is appropriate when there is a ‘high degree’ of necessity” for declaring one. Harvey v. State, 296 Ga. 823, 831 (770 SE2d 840) (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted). Whether such necessity exists is to be determined by weighing the defendant’s right to have his trial completed before the particular...
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 · 21 de septiembre de 2021
Anglin v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Daniel Anglin por matar a su cuñado Chad Ruark, rechazando argumentos sobre pruebas insuficientes, una revelación tardía sobre otro sospechoso y reclamos de que su abogado debió objetar el testimonio de un agente del GBI.
In responding to the State’s argument that this evidence still presented multiple hearsay problems, appellate counsel argued that he did not need to present Houseman’s and Thomas’s actual testimony because he was not trying to show that Daniel had committed the crime. Instead, appellate counsel said he was trying to show that the sheriff’s office conducted...
(a) The trial court’s denial of a continuance. Anglin argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a one-day continuance so that he could investigate the belatedly disclosed evidence before opening statements. A trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for continuance. See OCGA § 17-8-22. We will not disturb a trial...
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...
Here, Vivian made no assertion of a desire to represent himself 3 Vivian raises this claim solely under the Florida court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment in Nelson, and we therefore consider Vivian’s argument in the context of the U.S. Constitution. However, we note that the Georgia Constitution also provides a defendant the right to...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de octubre de 2021
Harper 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 Floyd, rechazando su alegato de que el voir dire debía transcribirse y encontrando suficiente evidencia para rechazar su alegato de legítima defensa.
3 When Graham was decided, OCGA § 17-8-5 was codified as Code Ann. § 27-2401, but the pertinent statutory language has not been materially amended since then. See Allen v. State, 310 Ga. 411, 420 n.8 (851 SE2d 541) (2020) (“The General Assembly made a few purely stylistic changes, removing several commas, in enacting OCGA § 17-8-5 (a), but otherwise the...
remains valid precedent, the trial court did not commit any error, plain or otherwise, when it did not on its own order the transcription of voir dire proceedings under OCGA § 17-8-5 (a), so this enumeration of error fails. 3. Harper further contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to disprove his justification defense beyond a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 14 de diciembre de 2021
Hines v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre, rechazando su argumento de que el juez de primera instancia no debió permitir que un testigo de último momento declarara en su contra.
Because the requirements of OCGA § 17-16-8 (a) were satisfied with respect to Johnson, we need not decide whether the trial court also abused its discretion when it declined to exclude Johnson’s testimony under OCGA § 17-16-6, which provides certain remedies when the State “has failed to comply with the requirements of this article[.]” See Cockrell v....
313 Ga. 1 FINAL COPY S21A1079. HINES v. THE STATE.
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.
On February 14, 2012, however, the CDO filed a notarized statement signed by the Circuit Defender, which said the following: The defendant, WASEEM ANAS DAKER, was denied a court appointed attorney on or about March 16, 2011 after an investigation into his financial resources. At that time the investigation revealed that Mr. Daker would not qualify for...
Contrary to this position, the Court of Appeals indicated in Weber v. State, 203 Ga. App. 356 (416 SE2d 868) (1992), that before a waiver of appellate counsel would be valid, the record should reflect a defendant’s appreciation of the charges for which he has been convicted and possible avenues of post- judgment relief. A defendant should also be aware that...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de enero de 2021
Nesby 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 DeKalb, al determinar que las conferencias en el estrado no grabadas y realizadas fuera de su presencia durante el juicio no violaron su derecho constitucional a estar presente.
2. Nesby complains that throughout trial, both during voir dire and during the presentation of the evidence, the trial court conducted bench conferences with counsel outside of his presence, 2 Nesby does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and because this case was docketed to the term beginning in December, we do not...
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: January 11, 2021 S21A0207. NESBY v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de mayo de 2021
Sinkfield v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre que disparó a Vernon Forrest, y rechazó las alegaciones de que la lista de jurados del condado de Fulton violaba las reglas de composición del jurado y de que la calificación por pena de muerte de los jurados violaba sus derechos a una muestra representativa.
Because Sinkfield has not demonstrated harm, a reversal of his convictions would be warranted only if the violations at issue were akin to a “structural error” — that is, a “structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (111...
311 Ga. 524 FINAL COPY S21A0298. SINKFIELD v. THE STATE.
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.
1. Background. Houston was charged with DUI and various related charges in three cases arising from three separate incidents occurring in 2014, 2015, and 2017. Houston, who apparently was not deemed to be indigent (and does not claim indigence on appeal), retained an attorney to represent him in two of the cases but did not obtain representation for the...
. . . 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...
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 · 15 de febrero de 2021
Champ 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 Ben Hill, pero devolvió el caso al tribunal de primera instancia para que celebre una audiencia sobre su alegato de que fue excluido inconstitucionalmente de las conferencias en el estrado durante la selección del jurado.
(viii) Post-trial proceedings. The record shows that after the jury found Appellant guilty and the trial court sentenced him, he filed two motions for new trial, one through his trial counsel and the other through a lawyer who briefly represented him; a third lawyer filed a “brief in support of amended motion for new trial” and then represented Appellant at...
In at least one case where such a claim was raised first on appeal, we have reviewed the existing record and concluded that it showed enough about what the defendant could see and hear for us to comfortably construe his failure to timely complain about his absence as acquiescence. See Zamora, 291 Ga. at 519-520 (finding acquiescence from a combination of...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.