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 325 pasajes en 164 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de febrero de 2023
Bowman v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que el juicio de 2014 de un hombre del condado de Paulding nunca ocurrió ante la ley, porque los 12 ciudadanos que escucharon su caso nunca fueron juramentados como jurado, por lo que él tiene derecho a ser liberado y absuelto conforme a la ley de juicio rápido de Georgia.
On November 27, 2019, through new counsel, Bowman filed a motion for discharge and acquittal on statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds. On the same day, the State filed a motion seeking a declaratory order that the December 2014 proceeding “constitute[d] a trial” for the purpose of satisfying Bowman’s Demand for Speedy Trial pursuant to OCGA §...
We granted Bowman’s petition for certiorari and posed the following question: Was [Bowman] deprived of his statutory or constitutional right to a speedy trial where the trial he received was held before a jury that had not sworn the oath required by OCGA § 15-12-139? The case was orally argued in this Court on September 20, 2022. 2. The dispute in this case...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de junio de 2023
Leonard v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Joshua Leonard por un tiroteo en Columbus en 2010, dictaminando que las declaraciones de la víctima identificando a sus agresores, hechas después de despertar de un coma y de nuevo el día en que murió, fueron admitidas correctamente como declaraciones de moribundo.
Reading closing arguments as a whole, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when allowing the prosecutor’s reference to scripture, which was permissible rebuttal. Indeed, the prosecutor attempted to defuse Leonard’s argument and offer an explanation as to why Grimes repeatedly identified Leonard and Alexander, resorting to Biblical...
“When an accused claims that a delay in bringing him to trial has worked a denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, a court first must consider whether the delay is long enough to raise a presumption of prejudice and to warrant a more searching judicial inquiry into the delay.” State v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 863, 864 (1) (734 SE2d 12) (2012). Here,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 7 de febrero de 2023
Rucker v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre por una invasión a un hogar con resultado de muerte en el suroeste de Atlanta, rechazando sus argumentos sobre una instrucción faltante al jurado y un juicio retrasado.
(c) Assertion of the right. The trial court weighed Rucker’s delay in asserting his right to a speedy trial heavily against him. Rucker argues that the trial court erred in this regard because, although he did not assert his right to a speedy trial until he filed his motion to dismiss the indictment on April 13, 2017, he was not served with initial...
We cannot say that the trial court erred in reaching this determination. Because delay often works to a defendant’s advantage, “the accused bears some responsibility to invoke the speedy trial right and put the government on notice that he . . . would prefer to be tried as soon as possible.” Ruffin, 284 Ga. at 62 (2) (b) (iii). And, “[o]ur cases hold that...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de mayo de 2023
Blalock v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Dwight Blalock Jr., rechazando sus argumentos de que el juez del juicio debió haber aplazado su juicio y que un testigo comentó indebidamente sobre su silencio.
8 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.” prompt setting of the trial date was its attempt “to comply with the demand for trial” (citations and punctuation...
As noted above, “to be entitled to a new trial based upon the denial of a motion for a continuance, a defendant has the burden to show that he was harmed by that denial.” Phoenix v. State, 304 Ga. 785, 788 (2) (822 SE2d 195) (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, even if the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the motion for...
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.
It is unclear whether Kimbro contends in his brief on appeal that the prosecutor violated certain discovery statutes. See OCGA §§ 17-16-8 (a) (requiring the prosecutor in a felony case to provide to the defense certain information regarding witnesses “not later than ten days before trial” or “as otherwise ordered by the court”) & 17-16-4 (a) (3) (A)...
investigative delay does not deprive him of due process, even if his defense might have been somewhat prejudiced by the lapse of time”).10 To prevail on this claim, Kimbro must “‘prove (1) that the delay caused actual prejudice to his defense, and (2) that the delay was the result of deliberate prosecutorial action to give the State a tactical advantage.’”...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de marzo de 2023
TAYLOR, EXR. v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION, INC. (And Vice Versa)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó el límite de $250,000 en daños punitivos de Georgia en un caso de agresión sexual contra un centro de tratamiento de Georgia, y determinó que el límite no viola el derecho a un juicio con jurado, la separación de poderes ni la igualdad de protección ante la ley.
71 See Nestlehutt, 286 Ga. at 733 (2) (noting that “Blackstone, ‘whose commentaries constituted the law of this State, before and since the Revolution,’ [are] authoritative on [the] jury trial right as of 1798” (citation and punctuation omitted)). accommodated to times or to men, should be deposited in the breasts of the judges . . . .”). But answering...
III. Right to Trial by Jury We now turn to Taylor’s primary argument: that the portion of OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (g) that establishes a $250,000 cap on the amount of punitive damages a plaintiff may recover violates the Georgia Constitution’s right to trial by jury.17 A. The Georgia Constitution’s Right to Trial by Jury The Georgia Constitution of 1983 provides:...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de mayo de 2023
Ward, Comr. v. Medina
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó un fallo según el cual la declaración de culpabilidad de un hombre del condado de Wheeler por robo a mano armada y agresión agravada fue involuntaria, porque le dijeron que enfrentaba mucho más tiempo de prisión del que la ley realmente permitía y se le insinuó que un juicio le iría peor.
The trial court denied Medina’s request, stating that Medina just had an extended conversation with counsel, Medina’s speedy trial demand had imposed constraints on the court, a jury and witnesses were ready and waiting, and the trial court was unwilling to delay proceedings any further. Medina began to say, “I want to ask my attorney —” before the trial...
As stated above, when considering a habeas court’s grant or denial of habeas relief, we review that court’s factual findings for clear error and independently apply the law to the facts. This is not a novel proposition, for we have used a similar standard of review when evaluating determinations about whether a defendant’s constitutional rights have been...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de julio de 2023
In THE INTEREST OF R. J. A., a Child
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia se negó a revisar un fallo de la Corte de Apelaciones sobre cuándo un menor encarcelado cuenta como 'detenido' para efectos del plazo de acusación formal, pero el magistrado Pinson escribió por separado para cuestionar si los tribunales deberían examinar expedientes antiguos, más allá de las opiniones publicadas, para determinar qué decidió realmente un fallo anterior.
The question presented in this case is whether a superior court or a juvenile court had jurisdiction over the underlying prosecution against R. J. A., a juvenile. A juvenile charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of the superior court “who is detained” is entitled to have the charge presented to the grand jury “within 180 days of the date of...
I am authorized to state that Justice Warren joins in this concurrence.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de marzo de 2023
Johnson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó su propia regla de larga data según la cual cualquier presentación judicial que un acusado hiciera por su cuenta mientras estaba representado por un abogado era automáticamente nula, y le dio a los tribunales de primera instancia discreción para aceptar esas presentaciones en circunstancias limitadas.
such filings as “legal nullities.” See, e.g., Sims v. State, 312 Ga. 303, 303 n.2 (862 SE2d 507) (2021) (pro se filings made by counseled defendant were “legal nullities”); White v. State, 302 Ga. 315, 319 (2) (806 SE2d 489) (2017) (trial court correctly treated pro se filings by counseled defendant as “legal nullities”). And based on this rule, we have...
315 Ga. 876 FINAL COPY S22A0964. JOHNSON v. THE STATE.
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.
“Even if an appeal is jurisdictionally defective from the outset, a notice of appeal generally acts as supersedeas until the appeal is dismissed.” Jones v. Peach Trader, 302 Ga. 504, 508 (807 SE2d 840) (2017). However, the filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case from an order that is appealable only under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) does not act as a supersedeas...
315 Ga. 661 FINAL COPY S22A1303. GONZALES v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de enero de 2023
Hightower v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un juez del condado de Fulton actuó dentro de su autoridad al declarar un juicio nulo en un juicio por asesinato debido a una emergencia judicial por COVID-19, por lo que la acusada puede ser juzgada de nuevo sin violar las protecciones contra la doble incriminación.
attaches when the jury has been impaneled and sworn.” Blake v. State, 304 Ga. 747, 749 (2) (822 SE2d 207) (2018). But “[e]ven after jeopardy has attached, trial courts may declare a mistrial over the defendant’s objection, without barring retrial, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for...
The manifest necessity standard requires a “high degree of necessity” to grant a mistrial. Laguerre v. State, 301 Ga. 122, 124 (799 SE2d 736) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Tubbs v. State, 276 Ga. 751, 754 (3) (583 SE2d 853) (2003) (“Manifest necessity can exist for reasons deemed compelling by the trial court, especially where the ends...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de octubre de 2023
Kinlaw v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato y la cadena perpetua de Harold Dean Kinlaw, rechazando sus impugnaciones a las pruebas de acecho agravado, las instrucciones al jurado, una disputa sobre intérprete y cuestiones de selección del jurado.
BETHEL, Justice. A Glynn County jury found Harold Dean Kinlaw guilty of the malice murder of Felipe Herrera, the aggravated stalking and kidnapping of Kinlaw’s former wife Damaris Kinlaw, and other related crimes.1 Kinlaw appeals, arguing that the evidence was 1 The crimes occurred on January 18, 2004. On May 19, 2004, a Glynn County grand jury indicted...
motion for new trial. On December 11, 2008, Kinlaw filed a pro se motion for appointment of appellate counsel. New attorneys filed entries of appearance in November 2009 and May 2014, but it does not appear from the record that those attorneys took any action on Kinlaw’s appeal. In November 2019, current appellate counsel, the third post-trial counsel to...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de octubre de 2023
Rivera 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 Ben Hill en un caso sin resolver de 1996, resuelto décadas después mediante pruebas de ADN, pero anuló su condena por violación porque los fiscales nunca le dijeron al gran jurado por qué el cargo de violación no era demasiado antiguo para presentarse.
(1909) (punctuation omitted)). To that end, “[t]his Court has held that an exception to the statute of limitation is a ‘material allegation’ which must be alleged in the indictment.” Id. (quoting McLane v. State, 4 Ga. 335, 342 (2) (1848) (holding that the State is required to allege in the indictment “the particular exception” which the State “intended to...
has made it clear that fundamental principles of due process require indictments or other charging instruments to not only show that a public law of the State has been violated, but also that the defendant has been indicted therefor, in the manner, and within the time, prescribed by the laws of the land. Lynch, 346 Ga. App. at 866 (McMillian, J., concurring...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de junio de 2023
MUSE v. THE STATE (Three Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y pandillerismo de tres hombres involucrados en un tiroteo en una gasolinera de Atlanta, rechazando impugnaciones a la evidencia, los procedimientos del jurado y la separación de su juicio conjunto.
Debra K. Jefferson, for appellant (case no. S23A0427). Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, Michael S. Carlson, Kevin C. Armstrong, Elaine L. Thompson, Juliana Y. Sleeper, Assistant District Attorneys; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Beth A. Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Matthew B. Crowder, Eric C....
OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (3) (A) required the State, as it concedes, to permit Muse and Darious to inspect and copy the data extracted from Muse’s cell phone “no later than ten days prior to trial, or as otherwise ordered by the court.” “OCGA § 17-16-6 provides that if the ten-day deadline is not met, the trial court can elect various remedies short of exclusion,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de enero de 2023
GAY v. JACKSON, JUDGE
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un conductor que impugnaba restricciones previas al juicio sobre su licencia mediante una petición de habeas corpus actuó de forma prematura, porque su caso de exceso de velocidad seguía pendiente y los recursos judiciales ordinarios seguían disponibles para él.
PINSON, Justice. Donovan Gay received a speeding ticket and pleaded not guilty. While his case was still pending, he filed a pretrial petition for habeas corpus to challenge pretrial restrictions on his driving privileges. The habeas court dismissed the petition, and we now affirm the dismissal. As we recently held in Phillips v. Jackson, 314 Ga. 347 (877...
Gay’s petition must be dismissed for this reason. We recently explained why in Phillips, which addressed the claims of a habeas petitioner in the same posture as Gay. See Phillips, 314 Ga. at 347- 348. There, as here, the petitioner’s case was bound over to state court after the municipal court imposed restrictions on his driving privileges, and the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de mayo de 2023
Moody v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las sentencias de muerte de Jeremy Moody por la violación y el asesinato en 2007 de dos primas adolescentes en el condado de Fulton, rechazando los 13 reclamos que él presentó, incluyendo que su declaración de culpabilidad fue forzada.
3. Moody argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for self-representation at the guilt/innocence phase following a Faretta hearing.7 As we just held, Moody’s guilty plea was valid. Consequently, Moody waived any argument regarding his right to self-representation at the guilt/innocence phase. 7 The record shows that approximately five months...
When the prosecutor asked Moody whether he was satisfied with the services of counsel, Moody stated that he “wasn’t,” referring to conflicts with counsel that led to his request to proceed pro se. The trial court pointed out that it had previously “ruled about the representation issue” and stated that “that question . . . is not part of the plea colloquy...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de mayo de 2023
State v. HARRIS (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que tenía jurisdicción para conocer la apelación del Estado en un caso de asesinato en el condado de Fulton pese a la falta de órdenes escritas del tribunal de primera instancia, y devolvió el caso porque el juez de primera instancia usó las pruebas legales equivocadas para excluir evidencia clave.
The next day, on Friday, June 10, 2022, the State filed a “notice of need for written orders on pretrial motions,” which specifically requested that the trial court enter written orders memorializing its oral rulings on Harris’s motion in limine and motion to suppress “so that the State may exercise its statutory rights of appeal on those orders.” In a...
OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) authorizes the State to appeal a trial court’s order, decision, or judgment under certain circumstances in a criminal case. Ordinarily, “an order is not appealable [under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a)] unless it is in writing.” Morrell, 281 Ga. at 152 (2). But an exception to this general rule arises where “the transcript affirmatively shows that the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de septiembre de 2023
Wilkerson 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 Sumter, rechazando su alegación de legítima defensa, su solicitud de una instrucción sobre homicidio voluntario y sus objeciones al testimonio sobre su tiempo en la cárcel antes del juicio.
At trial, Appellant called his cousin, Vincent Wilkerson, as a witness. Vincent testified, among other things, that he had seen Greene with a gun on the day of the crimes. On cross-examination, Vincent acknowledged that the first time that he had told anyone about Greene’s possession of a gun was when he told defense counsel “a few weeks” before trial. The...
BOGGS, Chief Justice. Appellant Kentavous Wilkerson challenges his 2019 convictions for felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Bradley Green and the non-fatal shooting of Rodney Greene. On appeal, Appellant contends that (1) the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de febrero de 2023
Taylor v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y agresión agravada de un hombre en un juicio de 2013 en el condado de Richmond, rechazando reclamos sobre pruebas de salud mental excluidas, una sentencia basada en su rechazo de un acuerdo de culpabilidad, el testimonio de un testigo y una representación legal ineficaz.
Judge . . . I have accepted responsibility for it. I told my attorney several times that I would accept manslaughter because that is what I felt like I have done. I did take manslaughter. Okay. But I had no intent to — I did not understand the severity, I did not understand Mr. Roberts, and I didn’t know that he was as bad as he was. I did not know that my...
315 Ga. 630 FINAL COPY S22A1003. TAYLOR v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de enero de 2023
Kelly v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un juez del condado de Richmond perdió la facultad de reconsiderar su propia orden que concedía un nuevo juicio a Jeremiah Kelly una vez terminado el período judicial, por lo que la orden posterior que negó el nuevo juicio a Kelly no es válida.
3. Though it largely accepts this reality, the State nonetheless argues that the trial court’s initial order granting Kelly’s motion for new trial must be vacated because it was “null and void for failure to comply with due process and fundamental fairness.” The State offers several lines of reasoning to support its contention that “[t]he process by which...
6 Although the State admits that “it is a rare case in which these concepts may be said to apply to the State in a criminal prosecution,” it offers no example—not even a “rare” one—of due process applying to the State under such circumstances. The only case that the State cites in support of this idea, Prater v. State, 222 Ga. App. 486, 488 (474 SE2d 684)...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.