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 318 pasajes en 159 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de septiembre de 2022
Williams 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 Richmond, rechazando su alegato de legítima defensa, su argumento sobre la declaración de culpabilidad de un cómplice y su reclamo de que una demora de 25 meses antes de su nuevo juicio violó su derecho a un juicio rápido.
4. Finally, Williams argues that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated when he was not brought to retrial for 25 months after remittitur of his case to the superior court following the reversal of his convictions by this Court. The trial court determined that Williams’s constitutional speedy-trial right was not violated and denied both a...
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 presumption of prejudice, the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de diciembre de 2022
Davis 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, rechazando sus alegatos de que se violaron sus derechos a un juicio rápido, que se excluyó indebidamente evidencia sobre el amigo de la víctima, y que su abogado fue ineficaz.
2. Davis first contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on this issue, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and we will affirm its ultimate conclusion absent an abuse of discretion. See Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 286 (4) (845 SE2d 625) (2020)....
2 Although this filing may have been intended as a statutory speedy-trial demand, it did not comply with the speedy-trial statute. See OCGA § 17-7-171. That Code section provides that, absent “special permission of the court,” any speedy-trial demand must be filed “at the term of court at which the indictment is found or at the next succeeding regular term...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de mayo de 2022
Redding v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia devolvió por segunda vez un caso de asesinato del condado de Muscogee al tribunal de primera instancia, al determinar que el juez aplicó mal la ley y no ponderó correctamente los factores usados para decidir reclamos de juicio rápido.
apparently was unable to post the bond amount and so remained in jail. On September 28, 2017, [Appellant] filed a “Motion to Dismiss Charge Based on Violation of Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial.” At that point, [Appellant] had not yet been indicted, and he noted in his motion that he had repeatedly asked for his case to be presented to a grand jury and...
2. The Barker framework A constitutional speedy-trial claim is evaluated under the two- part framework set out in Barker. See Redding I, 309 Ga. at 128 (3). First, the trial court must consider “whether the length of time between the defendant’s arrest and trial is sufficiently long to be considered ‘presumptively prejudicial.’ If not, the speedy-trial...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de mayo de 2022
Smith v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato con delito grave de un hombre del condado de Dougherty por la muerte a golpes de Jerome Walden, rechazando argumentos sobre la acusación formal y múltiples reclamos de asistencia letrada ineficaz contra su abogado de juicio.
(c) Smith next contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for Smith’s acquittal after the State failed to try him on the felony murder charge within the period authorized by the speedy trial statute for capital cases. See OCGA § 17-7-171. Cf. OCGA § 17-7-170 (speedy trial statute for non- 8 To the extent that Smith is...
If more than two regular terms of court are convened and adjourned after the term at which the demand for speedy trial is filed and the defendant is not given a trial, then the defendant shall be absolutely discharged and acquitted of the offense charged in the indictment, provided that at both terms there were juries impaneled and qualified to try the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 9 de agosto de 2022
Harris 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, dictaminando que el juez de primera instancia negó correctamente una prórroga de último momento y que las decisiones estratégicas de su abogado defensor no constituyeron asistencia ineficaz.
PETERSON, Presiding Justice. Juan Keon Harris was convicted of murder and other crimes committed against Tony Morris.1 On appeal, Harris argues that the trial court should have granted him a continuance to call missing 1 The crimes took place on September 29, 2001. Harris was first indicted by a Fulton County grand jury on January 15, 2002. He was...
objections after the trial court’s charge, which lacked any instruction on affirmative defenses, self-defense, or justification. Immediately after the trial court denied his supplemental request, Harris’s counsel said that he had been negligent in failing to watch the videotaped interviews of Favors and Julius Martin (a co-defendant of Harris and Favors in...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 8 de marzo de 2022
Hooper v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Timone Hooper, rechazando los reclamos de que su abogado debió haber solicitado una instrucción al jurado sobre la corroboración de confesiones y que los espectadores fueron excluidos indebidamente durante el interrogatorio a un jurado.
As to the third element, Hooper contends that the instructional error likely affected the outcome of the proceedings, because the trial court’s incomplete instruction “left the jury in the dark” about “the important requirement” that testimony that he made admissions of guilt after the event “had to be corroborated before [that testimony] could establish...
313 Ga. 451 FINAL COPY S22A0289. HOOPER v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 7 de septiembre de 2022
Reed v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Jaquavious Reed pese a reclamos sobre una demora de una década en la apelación, conferencias en el estrado sin registrar y evidencia faltante, pero ordenó anular su condena por asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave por ser duplicada.
However, Reed’s arguments merely attack the credibility of Wilson and Feggins, and it is well settled that “it is the role of the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the resolution of such conflicts adversely to the defendant does not render the evidence insufficient.” Graham v. State, 301 Ga. 675,...
“This Court has recognized that substantial delays experienced during the criminal appellate process implicate due process rights.” Chatman v. Mancill, 280 Ga. 253, 256 (2) (a) (626 SE2d 102) (2006). In assessing such claims, this Court considers four factors: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de septiembre de 2022
BUCKNER-WEBB v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la negativa de un juez de primera instancia a permitir que un abogado se retire por un conflicto de interés no puede apelarse de inmediato, y confirmó la desestimación de una apelación presentada por exeducadores de las Escuelas Públicas de Atlanta condenados en el escándalo de manipulación de exámenes.
(b) Application In the present case, the Court of Appeals majority concluded that the interlocutory order here — an order denying counsel’s motion to withdraw based on an alleged conflict of interest — was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine ————————————————————— 9 See, e.g., Duke, 306 Ga. at 174 (1) (holding that the collateral...
14 In Cobbledick, the United States Supreme Court concluded that where a non-party witness was not permitted to immediately appeal an interlocutory order of a trial court, the witness could either await final judgment for the trial court’s order to be reviewed by the appellate court, or “[l]et the court go further, and punish the witness for contempt of its...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 9 de agosto de 2022
Dugar 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 Rita Mary Dugar, y rechazó sus alegatos de que los comentarios de un juez en una audiencia de fianza anterior la presionaron a renunciar a un juicio con jurado y de que su abogado fue ineficaz.
COURT: All right. So in any event, you all flesh it out. That’s what you all get paid the big bucks for. At a second bond hearing a month later, after Dugar had been indicted, the attorneys reminded the original trial judge of his earlier statement at the first bond hearing, and the prosecutor provided more information to the court, including further...
At an October 2019 status conference before a senior judge, the prosecutor said that Dugar’s attorney had recently informed the State that he planned to seek a bench trial. The prosecutor asked “for a week or so to make that determination [i.e., whether the State would agree to Dugar’s request for a bench trial] and then get with 3 Dobbs did not testify at...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de septiembre de 2022
State v. Burton
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la decisión de un tribunal de primera instancia de suprimir las declaraciones que un joven de 16 años hizo a la policía tras su arresto por asesinato, al determinar que el Estado no probó que renunció a sus derechos Miranda de forma consciente y voluntaria.
The record thus shows that the trial court reviewed and weighed the evidence presented at the motion-to-suppress hearing, and that it also made factual and credibility determinations in reaching its ultimate conclusion that, considering all of the Riley factors, the State failed to meet its burden of establishing that Burton knowingly and voluntarily waived...
10 Contending that the trial court erred in ruling that the State failed to meet its burden of showing that Burton waived his rights under Miranda, the State cites a litany of cases in which this Court and the Court of Appeals have held that juveniles knowingly and voluntarily waived their rights. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 283 Ga. 304, 305-306 (658 SE2d...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de febrero de 2022
Terrell v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas relacionadas con asesinato de Frederick Terrell por un tiroteo en Atlanta en 2005, rechazando reclamos sobre demora en la apelación, un juicio nulo, la separación de juicios y asistencia legal ineficaz, pero corrigió un error de sentencia.
Terrell testified on his own behalf at trial and admitted that he went to the house that evening “to get answers” after a group had broken into and “trashed” his apartment. However, Terrell claimed that Stallings was standing in the doorway with a gun and that Stallings first raised the gun and shot toward him.3 Terrell responded with two or three shots...
We begin our analysis by setting out the four factors relevant to a due process claim premised on appellate delay: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. See Dawson v. State, 308 Ga. 613, 623 (4) (842 SE2d 875) (2020). In the context of appellate delay,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de mayo de 2022
Washington 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, y rechazó los reclamos de que su abogado de juicio fue ineficaz y de que fue excluido indebidamente de una discusión sobre qué pruebas físicas irían a la sala del jurado.
(b) Appellant argues that his right to a trial by jury was violated when the jury was allowed to deliberate without all of the evidence in the jury room. Appellant asserts that his counsel made “repeated request[s] for the firearm to go back with the jury for deliberation, [but] the trial court refused.” That is not what happened. Appellant’s counsel merely...
(c) Appellant argues that his state constitutional right to be 7 Appellant raises no claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel related to this issue. present during trial proceedings was violated when the trial court conducted a “hearing” on exhibits going to the jury room after Appellant had been escorted out of the courtroom. This Court has held...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 8 de marzo de 2022
Daniels v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un menor de 14 años, dictaminando que sus confesiones a la policía después de horas de interrogatorio fueron admitidas correctamente porque renunció a sus derechos Miranda de manera consciente y voluntaria.
(a) Daniels first argues that his statements to the police should have been excluded because the officers who arrested and interviewed him did not comply with OCGA § 15-11-502 (a) (3). That section of the Juvenile Code provides, in relevant part: A person taking an alleged delinquent child into custody, with all reasonable speed and without first taking...
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 appellant. Second, the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute. Third, the error must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de noviembre de 2022
Dougherty v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre condenado por asesinato con agravante no puede obtener una revisión de fondo de su moción de nuevo juicio, debido a fallos apelativos anteriores que fijaron cuándo su condena se volvió firme. La corte anuló una apelación fuera de tiempo y desestimó su apelación más reciente.
transitioning from jail into the state penitentiary system and through the diagnostic and classification process, manages either to obtain new counsel or to have his right to self-representation formally restored to him under Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 818-821 (III) (A) (95 SCt 2525, 45 LE2d 562) (1975), so that his pro se filings will not be...
Dougherty will never have an appellate decision on the merits of his motion for a new trial or other matters he could have raised in a direct appeal, solely because his trial attorney refused to sign that first motion for a new trial, in violation of his duties as a member of the bar and an officer of the court. Decisions of this Court have dictated this...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de marzo de 2022
Alexander v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre condenado por abusar sexualmente de sus hijastras debe probar que la sala de audiencias cerrada realmente cambió el resultado de su juicio para ganar un reclamo de asistencia letrada ineficaz, no simplemente que fue injusto.
2. The Right to a Public Trial, Structural Error, and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a . . . public trial[.]” Before excluding the public from any stage of a criminal trial, the party seeking to close the courtroom “must advance an overriding...
Georgia statutory law mandates the partial closure of a courtroom when a person under the age of 16 testifies in a criminal case concerning a sexual offense, although the statute permits certain individuals, including the defendant’s immediate family members, to remain in the courtroom. See OCGA § 17-8-54;5 see also Scott v. State, 306 Ga. 507, 513 (832...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 23 de agosto de 2022
Prickett v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de Santron Prickett por la muerte a tiros de Antwan Curry, rechazando reclamos de asistencia legal ineficaz y de violación del derecho a estar presente, pero devolvió el caso porque el tribunal de primera instancia impuso dos cadenas perpetuas por lo que debió ser una sola condena por asesinato con circunstancias agravantes.
2. Prickett next asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the court violated his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his trial by conferring with counsel out of Prickett’s presence 26 times during bench conferences.4 4 Although Prickett references the right to be present under the federal...
Moreover, a defendant may waive the constitutional right to be present. We have held under the Georgia Constitution that the right to be present belongs to the defendant, and he is free to relinquish it if he so chooses. A defendant may relinquish his right in several ways: if he personally waives the right in court; if his counsel waives the right at his...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 22 de junio de 2022
Jones v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó las condenas por asesinato de dos hombres porque el juez de primera instancia destituyó a una jurada disidente durante las deliberaciones sin hacer determinaciones suficientemente sólidas para justificar la destitución.
This Court also has held that good cause to remove a selected juror who has reached a “fixed and definite” opinion of guilt or innocence can be established after jury selection, before the start of deliberations. See Butler v. State, 290 Ga. 412, 417-418 (5) (721 SE2d 876) (2012). Indeed, a juror or prospective juror who holds a fixed opinion about guilt or...
Georgia law does not require a juror who has properly reached a fixed opinion as to guilt or innocence to continue to deliberate 15 The dissent agrees with this disapproval while still relying on Bethea as support for its conclusion. But only the now-disapproved reading of Bethea supports the dissent. indefinitely in order to fulfill the juror’s duty. See...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de marzo de 2022
Cook v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia eliminó la práctica de décadas de antigüedad que permitía a los condenados pedir directamente al tribunal de primera instancia una apelación fuera de plazo, y resolvió que el recurso de habeas corpus es ahora la única vía adecuada para buscar ese remedio.
Particularly in those sorts of cases, where the only issue is whether counsel failed to file timely, allowing post-conviction proceedings to be resolved by granting a motion for out-of-time appeal in the trial court is much more efficient than requiring a convicted defendant to turn to the much lengthier habeas process. Granting a motion for out-of-time...
34 I thank the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for its excellent amicus brief bringing this point to my attention. That brief also suggests that a 1986 amendment to a Title 40 statute applied limitations to seeking habeas relief from certain traffic convictions. See Ga. L. 1986, p. 444, § 1. The actual effect of the 1986 provision is not...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de diciembre de 2022
Smith v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un hombre del condado de Gwinnett condenado por matar a su hijo bebé tiene derecho a una audiencia sobre su reclamo de que la nueva ciencia médica desacredita el diagnóstico de bebé sacudido usado en su juicio.
Smith’s extraordinary motion said that a major shift in the medical community’s thinking began in 2006 when the National Association of Medical Examiners withdrew a position paper endorsing the “triad” as diagnostic of SBS. The medical community increasingly began to accept the idea that the “triad” of symptoms once considered diagnostic of SBS may also be...
The expert affidavit attached to Smith’s motion was provided by the chair of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Morningside, Dr. Saadi Ghatan, opining that the cause of Chandler’s death was pre-existing conditions resulting from birth injury and other events, and not from SBS. In his affidavit, Dr. Ghatan cited several ways in which the...
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.
And although Butler points to Dr. Stevens as supporting Butler’s defense theory that he did not cause Mrs. Ewing’s death, Dr. Stevens’ testimony undermines, rather than supports, Butler’s claim. That is because Dr. Stevens testified that it was “likely” that Mrs. Ewing’s preexisting medical conditions, “combined” with the blunt-force trauma she suffered...
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...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.