Hiram K. Undercofler

Johnny Prather was convicted in Coweta County of murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after evidence showed he shot and killed Bruce Roberson and wounded bystander Thomas Thornton during an argument at a tavern. He received a life sentence for the murder and concurrent four-year terms for the other offenses. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury evidence met the Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard and that introduction of Prather's prior felony conviction was proper because it was a required element of the firearm possession offense under the statute, unlike in recidivist proceedings where such evidence relates only to punishment.

criminal lawguns

The case involved the dismissal of felony-murder indictments against three defendants who were attempting a burglary when the homeowner shot and killed one of their fellow would-be burglars in defense of person and property. The State appealed, presenting an issue of first impression under Georgia law: whether the felony-murder statute applies when the intended victim, rather than a participant, causes the death of one of the felons. The court affirmed the dismissals, reasoning that the statute's key phrase requiring that the defendant "causes" the death is ambiguous as to indirect causation and therefore must be construed strictly against the State.

criminal law

The case addressed an apparent conflict in Georgia criminal law precedents concerning the presumption of sanity when a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity in a murder trial. Earlier decisions like Handspike v. State had held that evidence overcoming the presumption, without contrary proof of sanity, would render a guilty verdict unauthorized, while later cases such as Moses v. State allowed juries to reject expert or lay testimony on sanity and rely on the basic presumption of sanity. The court reviewed distinctions between special pleas of insanity (addressing competency at trial) and general pleas (addressing sanity at the time of the offense), along with related presumptions following prior insanity adjudications. It concluded that Handspike had been overruled sub silentio by subsequent rulings and expressly overruled it, reaffirming holdings in Gilbert v. State and Moses v. State that jurors may find an accused sane even without positive testimony of sanity. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Higdon pleaded guilty to burglary and received a two-year probated sentence based on the mistaken belief that he was a first offender. After he began serving the sentence, the trial court discovered his prior record, revoked the probation due to his silence about past convictions, and resentenced him to five years in confinement. Higdon's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the lower court. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed that denial. The court held that once a defendant begins serving a sentence, it may not be increased.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a suit to establish paternity of an illegitimate child conceived in Georgia and to obtain child support from the nonresident alleged father, who was served by mail under a Georgia statute. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of Code Ann. § 74-302(a), found proper service and residency facts, determined the appellant was the father, and issued a support order. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute satisfies due process requirements under the minimum contacts standard from International Shoe Co. v. Washington because the child was conceived in the state while both parents were residents. The court also noted supporting evidence including the appellant's admissions on the birth certificate and a prior guilty plea to abandonment.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned the procedural requirements for filing materials in support of a motion for summary judgment under Georgia law, specifically whether depositions and similar items of which the opposing party had notice must meet the same 30-day pre-hearing filing deadline as affidavits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the application of Code Ann. § 81A-156(c) and to address the validity of a prior Court of Appeals decision. The court held that only supporting materials on file at least 30 days before the hearing may be considered, approving the rule from Benton Bros. Ford Co. v. Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co. while disapproving a contrary holding below. It reasoned that the statute ensures due process by giving the respondent a fair opportunity to respond, though trial judges or stipulations can extend deadlines for flexibility. The judgment was affirmed because the complaining party had relied on the untimely deposition, resulting in no reversible error.

procedure