Harold N. Hill

The case involved a contract dispute in which Bobby Simmons sued Jeno Boros for allegedly defective repairs to the engine of Simmons's Fiat Spyder, after Boros had agreed to perform the work for a set price plus parts with a 60-day/600-mile warranty. Simmons brought claims in both tort and contract but proceeded at trial solely on the breach of contract theory. The trial court directed a verdict for Boros on the ground that Simmons had not proved the car's value before and after the repairs, relying on precedent from a tort case. On certiorari, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the proper measure of damages for defective workmanship in a contract action is generally the cost of repairing the defect, but it affirmed the directed verdict because the Court of Appeals had correctly found the evidence insufficient to establish either a breach or the amount of damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Davis v. State, John Michael Davis was convicted by a jury of murder and armed robbery after pleading guilty to theft by bringing stolen property into Georgia; the jury recommended and the trial court imposed a death sentence for the murder of Susan Marlene Isham, along with prison terms for the other offenses. Davis appealed, raising 29 enumerations of error related to the admission of his confessions, restrictions on presenting testimony from his girlfriend Patricia Underwood, jury selection and instructions, and other trial rulings. The court reviewed the detailed evidence of the December 1983 motel-room strangling, Davis's conflicting accounts at trial, and supporting witness testimony, then addressed the claims and found no reversible error in either the guilt-innocence or sentencing phases.

criminal lawprocedure

Charles Adams was convicted by a jury of murder and three counts of aggravated assault arising from a May 1984 road-rage incident in which he shot and killed the driver of another vehicle after a confrontation at a stop sign. On appeal, Adams challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and certain jury instructions on witness impeachment and verdict form. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia, and that the challenged instructions and general verdict created no reversible error when the charge was considered as a whole and in light of the facts of the case.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Steve and Linda Hightower sued General Motors and a dealership for damages related to defects in their Corvette, including loss of use and bad faith. During the trial, the defendants introduced evidence of Steve Hightower's guilty plea to third-degree arson under Georgia's First Offender Act, which arose from an incident where he arranged for his other car to be stolen and burned to support an insurance claim; this contradicted his testimony denying involvement. The trial court admitted the plea over objection, leading to a defense verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the ruling, holding that while it did not decide whether a first-offender plea could be used to show a conviction for impeachment, the plea was admissible to disprove facts testified to by the plaintiff and as a prior inconsistent statement. The court reasoned that such evidence was necessary to prevent the jury from being misled by false or deceptive testimony in the civil proceeding.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Roberts v. State, the defendant was charged with murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon following a fatal shooting after a dispute. The trial court admitted evidence of the defendant's prior voluntary manslaughter conviction only for the firearm charge, and the jury convicted him of felony murder (with the firearm count set aside as lesser included). The defendant appealed, claiming the prior conviction prejudiced the murder charge. The court affirmed, ruling that the evidence was properly admitted under Head v. State procedures since the firearm possession could underlie the felony murder conviction, and the jury received limiting instructions.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case concerned whether Thomas B. Murphy, Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives and an attorney, could represent a pharmacist and pharmacy before the Georgia State Board of Pharmacy in a disciplinary proceeding without violating the state constitution's provision that public officers are trustees of the people. The Board sought to disqualify Murphy based on a prior ruling in Dept. of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, which barred legislators from representing clients for financial gain against the state. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of disqualification, holding that Sistrunk does not extend to situations where the legislator-attorney charges no fee, as the constitution does not prohibit serving constituents without personal financial gain. Three justices concurred in the judgment only while preferring to overrule Sistrunk, and three dissented in favor of a broader disqualification rule grounded in the legislator's oath and professional ethics.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between former spouses over two tracts of land that the husband deeded to the wife shortly after their divorce. The husband claimed the wife fraudulently induced the deeds and sued in equity to compel reconveyance, but he admitted the transfer was made to shield the property from potential alimony claims by his second wife. The jury ruled for the husband, but the court reversed, holding that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the wife under the doctrine of unclean hands. The core reasoning was that a party who admits using a deed to hinder or defraud a creditor is barred from seeking equitable relief to undo that transaction, regardless of the other party's conduct, as established by prior Georgia precedents like Cronic v. Smith.

family lawproperty

This case involved the 1983 murder and armed robberies committed during a holdup at an Atlanta apartment where the defendant was identified by multiple witnesses as the perpetrator who shot and killed Angela Spears. The jury convicted the defendant of malice murder and three counts of armed robbery, found two statutory aggravating circumstances based on his prior armed robbery conviction and the commission of murder during other felonies, and imposed the death penalty. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia standard and rejecting a claim of unconstitutional underrepresentation of black males in jury pools drawn from voter rolls. However, it vacated the death sentence and ordered a new sentencing trial because the admission of evidence regarding an unrelated April 1983 armed robbery trial was not harmless error and could have improperly influenced the jury's penalty determination.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a civil rights action under 42 USC § 1983 brought by James Roy Davis against the City of Roswell, its police chief, and officer Michael Ramey, alleging that inadequate training of the officer caused a violation of rights when Davis was stopped while driving his critically ill wife to the hospital and prevented from proceeding. After a jury verdict against the city and chief, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed and directed judgment for those defendants. The court held that the evidence showed no municipal policy of inadequate training sufficient to support § 1983 liability, as the officer had received first aid training and on-the-job instruction, promptly summoned medical assistance, and the undisputed facts established that help arrived within minutes without any proven causal link to deficient city policy.

civil rights

This case involved a lawsuit on a fire insurance policy after the plaintiffs' vacation home burned down in 1982, with disputes over coverage for the dwelling, unscheduled personal property, debris removal, and living expenses, as well as claims for bad faith damages and attorney fees. The trial court granted summary judgment on liability and, after a jury trial using a special verdict form, entered awards including the dwelling loss plus interest, reduced amounts for other losses with separate prejudgment interest, bad faith damages, and fees. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that interest on unliquidated contract damages could not be separately stated in the verdict and ordered a new trial. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that OCGA § 13-6-13 permits prejudgment interest on unliquidated breach-of-contract damages and that the evidence of replacement costs for common personal property items was sufficient for the jury to determine actual cash value, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned the statutes of limitations for tort claims of malicious prosecution and negligence arising from a bank allowing an imposter to open an account, leading merchants to obtain criminal warrants against the plaintiff for issuing bad checks. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank on limitations grounds, and the Court of Appeals affirmed by holding that the claims accrued when the bank returned the checks in December 1979. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, ruling that a malicious prosecution claim does not accrue until the underlying criminal proceedings terminate in the plaintiff's favor (here, the September 1982 nolle prosequi), so the March 1983 suit was timely under the two-year statute, and that any negligence claim causing arrest would accrue at the time of arrest in March 1981. The court reasoned that different torts arising from the same facts may have different accrual dates, and the running of limitations on one claim (such as libel) does not bar others.

torts & liabilityprocedurecriminal law

In Love v. State, the defendant was convicted of possessing diazepam based on evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his vehicle during a traffic stop. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that it was unnecessary to address the defendant's standing to challenge the search of his companion's purse because the search was valid under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The court reasoned that the trial court properly credited the arresting officer's testimony regarding probable cause from a reliable informant, allowing a search of the entire vehicle and its containers. The decision emphasized that where probable cause exists to believe a vehicle contains contraband, officers may conduct a warrantless search.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, following a 1980 separate maintenance judgment that awarded the wife the marital home and other assets as permanent alimony while leaving the husband with personalty in his possession, the wife later sought equitable division of the husband's profit-sharing trust, pension, and stock options in a subsequent divorce action. The trial court denied the husband's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the property remained marital and subject to division under prior precedent. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed, holding that property awarded in a separate maintenance judgment becomes part of the recipient's separate estate and is not subject to relitigation or equitable division in a later divorce suit. The court reasoned that this outcome follows from established precedent treating such awards as final and that permitting relitigation would undermine the finality needed to protect creditors.

family lawproperty

The case involved Michael J. Keener, who was charged with murdering his elderly aunt and raised an insanity defense based on his history of schizophrenia. The jury convicted him of murder but found him mentally ill, leading to a life sentence, and he appealed arguing that the evidence compelled a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence regarding the defendant's sanity at the time of the crime was conflicting, that he bore the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence, and that a rational jury could have rejected the expert opinions in favor of lay testimony and the presumption of sanity. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the guilty but mentally ill verdict under the applicable standards of review.

criminal lawprocedure

John Wayne Battle was tried and convicted by a jury of murder and burglary with intent to rape, based on physical evidence from the crime scene including matching fingerprints and palm prints on an air conditioner, shoe prints, dog hair and pubic hair comparisons, as well as testimony from a cellmate recounting Battle's admissions. The trial court denied Battle's request for funds to hire an independent expert to examine the pubic hair evidence but made the state crime lab available for defense use. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the denial of an independent expert did not violate due process.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury of three offenses under Georgia wildlife laws: hunting at night, hunting upon a public road, and hunting from a motor vehicle, after conservation rangers observed a spotlight from his car directed at a field and found a shotgun inside. The trial court instructed the jury using the statutory definition of 'hunting' from OCGA § 27-1-2(39), which the defendant challenged as vague and overbroad. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial, ruling that the definition must be limited to acts done for the purpose of shooting or capturing wildlife to avoid criminalizing innocent conduct, and that the jury charge as given was therefore erroneous. Constitutional challenges to the underlying statutes were not considered because they were not raised at trial.

criminal law

This medical malpractice case arose after a patient suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage during a postpartum tubal ligation at Georgia Baptist Hospital, allegedly due to improper anesthesia administered by an uncertified student nurse anesthetist. The plaintiffs sued the anesthesia group (Central Anesthesia Associates), the student, a physician's assistant, several anesthesiologists, the obstetrician, an intern, and the hospital. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on negligence per se against most defendants for violating OCGA § 43-26-9(b), which requires that anesthesia be administered by a certified registered nurse anesthetist under the direction and responsibility of a qualified physician; the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the anesthesia-related defendants and the hospital. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed those rulings, holding that the statute was breached as a matter of law because the nurse was not certified and no anesthesiologist assumed direction, and that the hospital had a duty not to permit such violations after representing that anesthesia would be supervised by an anesthesiologist.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is Hance's appeal from his resentencing trial in a Georgia murder case, where he was again convicted and sentenced to death for the 1978 killing of Brenda Gail Faison after an earlier death sentence was vacated by federal court. The Georgia Supreme Court addressed claims that four jurors were improperly excluded under Witherspoon standards, that Witherspoon qualification biased the jury toward death, that the trial court should have struck other jurors biased toward the death penalty, and that intense publicity from a separate local serial murder case (the Stocking Strangler) required a continuance. The court held that the excluded jurors were properly removed under the Wainwright v. Witt standard because their views would substantially impair their duties, that Witherspoon qualification did not produce an impermissibly death-prone jury, that no objected-to jurors showed disqualifying bias, and that voir dire showed no prejudice from the unrelated publicity so the continuance denial was not an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the death sentence, finding no reversible error and that the sentence was not imposed under passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the discovery rule for statutes of limitations in personal injury cases applies to a property damage claim arising from alleged negligent design and construction of a building. The building was substantially completed in 1972, damaged in 1975, and suit filed in 1979 by the owner's insurer. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the discovery rule does apply to OCGA § 9-3-30 for damage to realty, meaning the four-year limitations period begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and its causal connection to the defendant's negligence, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment on the tort claim.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

Derek Murray was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life in prison for stabbing Eugene Guinyard during a late-night fight outside a club on St. Simons Island. Murray appealed, arguing that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction on self-defense after he testified that the victim started the fight and he was defending himself. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the requested charge, which required the killing to be "absolutely necessary to save his own life," incorrectly imported an outdated requirement from the law of mutual combat that had been removed from the self-defense statute when the criminal code was revised in 1968. Because the trial court did not withdraw the erroneous instruction and the conflicting charges could not cure the error, the court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure