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:2024 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 333 pasajes en 162 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de marzo de 2024
Palmer v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de Willie Williams Palmer de su cuarto juicio, rechazando sus reclamos de que se violaron sus derechos a un juicio rápido y que el tribunal de primera instancia excluyó indebidamente pruebas que señalaban a otros posibles sospechosos.
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in rejecting his claim that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. We disagree. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial.” Sixth Amendment speedy trial claims are...
Application of the Barker-Doggett balancing test to particular cases is committed to the sound discretion of the trial courts. See Heard v. State, 295 Ga. 559, 563 (761 SE2d 314) (2014). Thus, on appeal from a ruling on a speedy trial claim, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and we review the trial court’s...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de febrero de 2024
Redding v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): Por tercera vez, la Corte Suprema de Georgia devolvió el caso de asesinato de Merrick Redding a un tribunal de primera instancia del condado de Muscogee, al fallar que el juez volvió a aplicar mal la prueba legal para decidir si se violaron los derechos de Redding a un juicio rápido.
(c) The assertion of the right to a speedy trial. The trial court weighed the assertion-of-right factor neutrally and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. We have explained that this factor asks whether the defendant asserted the right to a speedy trial in due course. This factor focuses on the timing, form, and vigor of the accused’s demands to be...
Although the trial court again made an erroneous factual finding that Redding requested trial delays, the trial court correctly laid out the other facts and reasons behind the one-year delay in filing the speedy-trial motion and based its analysis in large part on those findings. It is undisputed that Redding first raised the speedy- trial issue one year...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de marzo de 2024
McCullum v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de Samuel Earl McCullum por la violación y el asesinato en 1998 de Monica Blackwell y la violación de otra mujer en 1999, rechazando sus argumentos de que la evidencia era insuficiente y que la demora previa al juicio y la acumulación de cargos violaron sus derechos.
(a) The Length of the Delay As stated above, we agree with the trial court that the ten-plus- year delay between McCullum’s indictment and trial for C. C.’s rape was presumptively prejudicial. See Goins, 306 Ga. at 57 (2) (b). The trial court found that McCullum had been incarcerated out of state for eight of the ten-plus years that comprised the delay,...
(b) The Reasons for the Delay The trial court found that from 2007 to 2009, McCullum was incarcerated in North Carolina and Kentucky, so his incarceration during that period was not attributable to the pending rape charge in Georgia. From 2009 to 2011, the trial court found, McCullum was incarcerated in Georgia while awaiting trial for C. C.’s rape but, at...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de octubre de 2024
Redding v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó por cuarta y última vez la condena de Merrick Redding por asesinato en grado de delito grave, al determinar que no se violaron sus derechos a un juicio rápido y que cualquier error probatorio en el juicio fue inofensivo.
LAGRUA, Justice. Following a 2018 jury trial, Appellant Merrick Redding was found guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault in connection with the death of Joseph Davis. This is Redding’s fourth appeal to this Court. In his first three appeals, we vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for the trial court to apply the correct facts and legal...
Redding for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault with a “closed fist.” He was reindicted on the same charges on May 22, 2018. At a trial from October 24 to November 5, 2018, the jury found Redding not guilty of malice murder but guilty of the remaining counts. The trial court orally denied the speedy-trial motion at the pretrial conference...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de agosto de 2024
Johnson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Chatham, al resolver que un plazo de la ley estatal sobre juicio rápido no anula ni bloquea un reclamo separado bajo el derecho federal a un juicio rápido de la Sexta Enmienda.
After the verdict was read but before sentencing, Johnson asked to be appointed counsel to represent him at sentencing and on appeal; this request dismissing an untimely statutory demand for a speedy trial filed by his former counsel rather than considering whether his right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States...
2 Johnson does not challenge the trial court’s conclusion that the statu- tory demand was untimely. conflicts with the Sixth Amendment’s right to a speedy trial, and so the trial court should have considered whether his Sixth Amend- ment speedy trial right was violated instead of dismissing his stat- utory demand.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 30 de abril de 2024
POWELL v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó el camino hacia condenas de dos exfuncionarios policiales del condado de Glynn, al dictaminar que su acusación por violación de juramento de cargo no describía en realidad una violación de Brady y, por lo tanto, no podía sobrevivir a una excepción general.
In Count 4 of the indictment, Powell was individually charged with “willfully and intentionally” violating the terms of his oath of office under OCGA § 16-10-1 in that he did fail to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which provides in Article VII, Amendment V, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, as...
At the hearing on the general demurrers, Powell and Scott argued that the indictment should be dismissed because they could Powell and Scott filed motions to dismiss the indictment, seeking to be discharged and acquitted of all charges because they were not tried during the September 2021 term of court or the next term of court, which began in March 2022...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 31 de octubre de 2024
Capote v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia desestimó su propia concesión de revisión en la apelación de un hombre del condado de Gwinnett, decidiendo que este caso no era el vehículo adecuado para resolver si los estándares de Georgia de 'claramente erróneo' y 'alguna prueba' para revisar la determinación de hechos de los tribunales de primera instancia en casos penales son lo mismo.
* For a discussion about standards of review to make sense, it is helpful to understand the factual context in which the question about the standards arose. That’s because a standard of review often feels like an academic rubric until it is applied to a particular set of factual or legal findings—and it is often only at that point that a difference in a...
The written notice and request for final disposition referred to in paragraph (a) here shall be given or sent by the prisoner to the warden, commissioner of corrections or other official having custody of him, who shall promptly forward it together with the certificate to the appropriate prosecuting official and court by registered or certified mail or...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de febrero de 2024
Harper v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de Terry Harper por un tiroteo en un bar del condado de Fulton en 2003, rechazando sus reclamos sobre una demora de casi 19 años en la apelación, la negativa a declarar un juicio nulo y la asistencia ineficaz de su abogado.
1. Harper first contends that the over-19-year delay between his conviction and his direct appeal violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We review Harper’s claim that his delayed appeal constituted a due process violation under the four-part balancing test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S....
The record shows that Harper was sentenced on August 29, 2003, and afterward, Harper’s first appointed appellate counsel, who was also one of his trial attorneys, filed a timely motion for new trial on September 5, 2003. After filing that motion, Harper’s first appellate counsel took no further action in his case and failed to communicate with Harper or his...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de febrero de 2024
VANTAGE CANCER CENTERS OF GEORGIA, LLC v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH (Three Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que cuando el comisionado de salud estatal revisa las conclusiones fácticas de un oficial de audiencias en casos de certificado de necesidad, debe deferir a esas conclusiones a menos que carezcan de 'pruebas sustanciales competentes', un estándar que no le permite reponderar pruebas ni juzgar la credibilidad de los testigos.
Given these meanings of the term “particularity” and given the context in which the “particularity” requirement appears — the hearing officer conducting a de novo evidentiary hearing independent of the Department, and the Commissioner given limited ability to overturn the officer’s findings of fact — we conclude that the most reasonable understanding of the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de mayo de 2024
SMITH v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un caso de decomiso civil de $1 millón contra una familia de reciclaje de metales debe regresar para más revisión porque la demanda del Estado no describió correctamente el delito de hurto por apropiación.
2. The first certiorari question concerns the determinations of the trial court and Court of Appeals that OCGA § 9-16-12 (f) did not require dismissal of the second amended complaint. As noted above, OCGA § 9-16-12 (f) provides that “[i]f an answer is filed, a bench trial shall be held within 60 days after the last claimant was served with the complaint,”...
COLVIN, Justice. This is an appeal from an in rem civil-asset-forfeiture proceeding against over $1 million held in various bank accounts, real property, and other property that the State alleges was used, intended for use, or constituted the proceeds derived from the commission of numerous crimes related to the theft, purchase, and sale of catalytic...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 4 de septiembre de 2024
State v. Harris
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un tribunal superior envió indebidamente el caso de asesinato de un adolescente al tribunal de menores, sosteniendo que una primera acusación oportuna mantuvo el caso en el tribunal superior incluso después de que una reacusación posterior agregara nuevos cargos.
In pertinent part, OCGA § 17-7-50.1 provides: (a) Any child who is charged with a crime that is within the jurisdiction of the superior court, as provided in Code Section 15-11-560 or 15-11-561, who is detained shall within 180 days of the date of detention be entitled to have the charge against him or her presented to the grand jury. The superior court...
In granting Harris’s motion to transfer, the superior court focused on the term “the charge” found in OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (a) (“Any child . . . who is detained shall within 180 days of the date of detention be entitled to have the charge against him or her presented to the grand jury. . . .”) (emphasis supplied), interpreting this language to mean that, where...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de diciembre de 2024
Edwards-Tuggle 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 los argumentos de que los comentarios del juez sobre el horario presionaron al jurado y de que la estrategia de su abogado en el juicio equivalió a asistencia ineficaz.
Folks, as I told you, submitting an important case to both sides at 4:10 on a Friday afternoon before a holiday week is not ideal, but it’s still an important case to both sides. My experience is that jury deliberations take a while. That’s why we have 12 people. They see it differently. So the intent is to get it right, not go fast. Ordinarily, we would...
The appellant argued that the court’s instructions coerced the jurors into disregarding their obligations as jurors in favor of reaching a verdict quickly. Relying in part on cases involving the propriety of Allen2 charges, the appellant argued that the court’s instructions were a form of “verdict urging” involving a “time fuse” charge, one that implied a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de mayo de 2024
Sturkey v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Ricardo Sturkey, rechazando reclamos sobre las preguntas de un juez durante el juicio, el testimonio del polígrafo y la asistencia ineficaz del abogado, mientras señalaba una demora de casi 13 años en el proceso de apelación.
victim of apparently unrelated crimes would have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial. See Graves v. State, 306 Ga. 485, 489 (2) (a) (831 SE2d 747) (2019) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim premised on counsel’s failure to procure an expert witness because appellant failed to show that such testimony “would have rebutted the...
Sturkey’s present counsel ever filed an entry of appearance, so the precise date she became involved in this case is not apparent from the record. However, it is clear that present counsel has represented Sturkey since at least 2016, when Sturkey filed an inquiry with the Bar regarding his inability to communicate with counsel, and Sturkey’s pro se filings...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de agosto de 2024
MILLER v. HODGE
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia desestimó una impugnación electoral presentada por un votante del condado de Chatham porque esperó demasiado tiempo para presentar sus reclamos antes de que se celebrara una segunda vuelta, aunque la corte aclaró que este tipo de impugnaciones tardías no son realmente 'improcedentes por cuestiones abstractas' (moot).
We have repeatedly explained that, to avoid this outcome, “the party challenging either a primary or general election should make every effort to dispose of election disputes with dispatch and that the courts should not interfere with the orderly process of elections after the general election has been held.” Jordan, 277 Ga. at 156 (citation and punctuation...
In so holding, we have noted that the General Assembly “has demonstrated that election contests are to be heard with the greatest of expedition.” Swain v. Thompson, 281 Ga. 30, 31 (2) (635 SE2d 779) (2006) (noting, for example, OCGA § 21-2-524 (a)’s requirement that a petition be filed within five days of the consolidation of election returns). See also...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 9 de mayo de 2024
COBB COUNTY v. FLOAM
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó un fallo que había anulado el intento del condado de Cobb de rediseñar sus propios distritos de comisionados, sosteniendo que aunque los demandantes tenían legitimación, no podían solicitar una sentencia declaratoria porque no demostraron incertidumbre sobre su propia conducta futura.
novel issue raised in this case. A review of the record and the current posture of the Cobb County Commission suggests that an adverse merits decision for Cobb could feasibly result in at least one current Commission member to be found to lack residency in his or her district. And Cobb is currently conducting elections for two seats under the contested...
The County appealed. In response, the Floams filed motions to expedite the appeal and to lift the supersedeas stay imposed by OCGA § 5-6-46 (a). The County opposed both motions. We granted the Floams’ motion to expedite the appeal but held in abeyance their motion to lift the stay. We held oral arguments on April 17, 2024. 1. On appeal, the County argues...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de febrero de 2024
Green v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la declaración de culpabilidad de un hombre por asesinato, revocando dos décadas de sus propias decisiones que exigían la anulación automática cuando un juez no mencionaba específicamente los tres derechos descritos en Boykin v. Alabama.
was made “voluntarily” with an understanding of its “consequences” and “the nature of the charge,” and to ensure that there was a fac- tual basis for the plea. See Charles Alan Wright et al., 1A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Crim. § 171 History of the Rule (5th ed. 2023) (“Wright & Miller”). See also McCarthy, 394 U.S. at 465-466 (I).8 In McCarthy, the United States...
But in the wake of Boykin, the Rule’s approach to ensuring the constitutionality of guilty pleas changed. In 1974 and 1975, major amendments were made to Rule 11 to give district courts clear and specific directions for the plea colloquy. Those amendments, which were “designed” to incorporate Boykin, instruct district courts to “in- form the defendant of,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de marzo de 2024
Everett v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de Jerome Everett por asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave, dictaminando que una instrucción defectuosa al jurado sobre legítima defensa fue inofensiva porque la evidencia hacía muy poco probable que los jurados hubieran pensado que su disparo a Keith Nelson estuviera justificado en primer lugar.
2 We are troubled by the inordinate and unexplained delay between the filing of Everett’s motion for new trial in 2010 and the filing of an amended motion 12 years later. So, yet again, we remind the bench and bar that long post-conviction delays “put at risk the rights of defendants and crime victims and the validity of convictions obtained after a full...
318 Ga. 697 FINAL COPY S24A0396. EVERETT v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de agosto de 2024
Garrison v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que los fiscales no tienen que probar que las órdenes de emergencia judicial por COVID-19 extendieron un plazo para acusar a una acusada de DUI, pero devolvió su caso porque se usó la prueba legal equivocada para admitir pruebas de sobriedad de campo similares a la del alcoholímetro.
2. Georgia law generally does not require the State to allege or prove orders issued under the Judicial Emergency Act. Garrison contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the State need not allege and prove its reliance on orders under the Judicial Emergency Act as an exception to the statute of limitations. We disagree. In criminal cases, the...
The General Assembly has chosen to create tolling exceptions to the statute of limitations that pause the running of the limitations period for varying durations of time when certain specified facts are present, and these exceptions are set forth in OCGA §§ 17-3-2, 17-3- 2.1, and 17-3-2.2.9 Because these tolling exceptions are triggered only upon the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 30 de abril de 2024
Platt v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Rodrigues Platt, al dictaminar que la divulgación tardía de los resultados de una prueba de cabello y de una entrevista policial grabada no requería un juicio nulo ni un nuevo juicio dada la sólida evidencia en su contra.
even if the prosecutor’s statement is read as an apparent lack of objection, this does not establish that a mistrial was necessary. At most, the prosecutor’s statements show her acknowledgment of the fact that the court could grant a mistrial; those statements fell short of showing that the court was required to grant one. See Hightower v. State, 315 Ga....
3. Platt argues that the prosecutor violated OCGA § 17-8-75 by “identifying” him for three witnesses, and the trial court erred by failing to take some curative action. From a review of the record, it appears that the witnesses had an obstructed view of the defense table where Platt was sitting, and the prosecutor attempted to point 7 Although the claims of...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de diciembre de 2024
Peterson v. Vie
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia desechó la apelación de una candidata a jueza de sucesiones del condado de Douglas que impugnaba los requisitos de residencia de su oponente, al considerar que no actuó con suficiente rapidez para resolver la disputa antes de las elecciones primarias.
In the meantime, Peterson filed her verified post-primary petition in superior court on May 30, nine days after the primary. See OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq. That post-primary petition did not seek review of any administrative decision but was a direct challenge to the result of the primary election on the ground that Vie was ineligible for the office of probate...
3 We have explained that those prudential considerations include “preventing the unnecessary expense of holding more than one election, assuring the finality of results, and respecting the sanctity of elections wherein the will of the people is the supreme law.” Henry, 319 Ga. at 798 (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Miller, 319 Ga. at 548-549...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.