Georgia case law and legal news
Edited By George Washington

The Atlanta Gleaner.

December 28, 2022.

State v. Federal Defender Program, Inc., 2022 WL 17813458, December 20, 2022
#criminal law #COVID-19 #death penalty #federal law
On May 14, 2020, then-Chief Justice Harold Melton created the Judicial COVID-19 Task Force to advise the Judicial Council of Georgia and this Court regarding the implementation of measures to address the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Task Force created several sub-committees, including the Criminal Committee, whose purpose was to focus on issues related to COVID-19's effect on the criminal justice system in Georgia.

In connection with these efforts, on February 10, 2021 criminal law attorneys including Anna Arceneaux, the Executive Director of the Georgia Appellate Practice & Educational Resource Center, Jill Benton, the Supervising Attorney for the Federal Defender's Capital Habeas Unit, and other attorneys with clients scheduled for execution, met via video conference with Sabrina Graham, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Chief of the Capital Litigation Section of the Attorney General's Criminal Justice Division, and Beth Burton, the Deputy Attorney General of the Criminal Justice Division, on the issue of an execution moratorium.

After the meeting, Burton sent the following email memorializing their agreement: “Our office will not pursue an execution warrant from the District Attorney in the below defined cases before: 1) the final COVID19 judicial emergency order entered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia expires; 2) the Georgia Department of Corrections lifts its suspension of legal visitation, and normal visitation resumes; and 3) a vaccination against COVID-19 is readily available to all members of the public…[and] not to pursue an execution warrant of any prisoner ... before a total of at least six months after the time the above-three conditions were met.”

Over a year later, on April 27, 2022, the Superior Court of Cobb County entered an order for the execution of death row inmate Virgil Delano Presnell, Jr. The Department of Corrections scheduled the execution for May 17 at 7:00 p.m. On May 9, 2022, the Federal Defender filed on its own behalf a complaint against the State alleging a breach of the Agreement and seeking a temporary restraining order and an interlocutory injunction in order to halt Presnell's execution and foreclose the execution of the other inmates covered by the Agreement. Fulton County Superior Court granted the temporary injunction. Supreme Court of Georgia AFFIRMS.

Ballinger v. Watkins, 2022 WL 17813597, December 20, 2022
#juror misconduct #trial practice #criminal law

During Joseph Watkins's murder trial, a juror conducted a “drive test” during a break in deliberations to see whether the defendant could have been physically present at the time and place the victim was shot. The next day, the jury voted to convict Watkins of felony murder and other crimes, and he was sentenced to life in prison. Years later, Watkins's counsel learned about the juror's misconduct and filed the habeas petition in this case. Habeas relief was granted. Supreme Court of Georgia AFFIRMS.

On January 11, 2000, Isaac Dawkins was shot once in the head as he was driving his white pickup truck north on Highway 27 from Floyd College, south of Rome, Georgia. He died the next day. The physical evidence of the crime was limited: a lead bullet core recovered from Dawkins's body during the autopsy, a 9mm cartridge case found near the crime scene, and a bullet fragment found inside Dawkins's car that had markings consistent with having been fired from a 9mm firearm. No firearm was found.

At the same time of the shooting, Wayne Benson was also driving north on Highway 27. He noticed a small blue car driving erratically and interacting with a white pickup truck about a half mile north of Floyd College. After losing sight of the vehicles “[f]or a few minutes” and traveling about a mile to a mile-and-a-half down the road, Benson saw a “flash of some kind” before the white truck drove across the median, into southbound traffic, and then onto the far shoulder. Benson pulled over and called 911 to report the accident, and emergency services were dispatched at 7:19 p.m. No one else witnessed the incident or reported a vehicle interacting with the white truck.

During that same time, defendant Watkins was at home in northeast Floyd County, getting ready to drive to see his girlfriend, who lived 45 minutes south in Cedartown. While getting into his truck, Watkins called his girlfriend at 7:15 p.m. The call lasted for 4 minutes and 23 seconds and originated in an area covered by the Kingston cell tower—the only cell tower that covered Watkins's house. Watkins's girlfriend testified that he arrived in his white pickup truck at her house—south of the crime scene—around 8:00 p.m.

Juror Rogena Cordle later testified at the habeas hearing that she had been confused by the cell-phone evidence presented at trial. So, after the first day of deliberations on Saturday, despite the trial court's explicit instructions to not “go measuring distances or stopping by the scene and investigating on your own, she decided to do a drive test to see whether Watkins could have arrived at the scene of the crime around the time Dawkins was shot—7:18 or 7:19 p.m. based on the time of the emergency-services dispatch from Benson's 911 call—after making the phone call to his girlfriend from the Kingston tower's coverage area at 7:15 p.m.

The next day, a Sunday, Cordle used her car clock to time how long it took her to drive northbound on Highway 27 from the area of the crime to the intersection of Chulio Road and Highway 411. She drove the route backwards from end point to start point, her car clock did not indicate seconds, and she did not account for the time that it would have taken for Watkins to turn around from traveling south through the edge of the (supposed) Kingston cell-tower coverage area to head back north in the direction of the crime. Nor did she account for the testimony that the shooter had been seen traveling from the south in tandem with Dawkins for “a few minutes” and at least a mile before the shooting. And she did not know exactly where the crime had occurred or where the Kingston cell tower's coverage ended. Nonetheless, based on her drive test, she determined that Watkins could have been where Dawkins was shot at the relevant time.

On Monday morning, the day after Cordle's drive test, the jury voted to convict Watkins. In April 2022, the habeas court granted Watkin’s petition, terminating their analysis after finding juror misconduct.

December 27, 2022.

Royal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2022 WL 17590154, December 13, 2022
#personal injury #insurance defense #UIM benefits
Lance Royal appeals the order granting partial summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in this personal injury action in which Royal sought uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits under more than 20 State Farm policies issued to his father. The trial court ruled that Royal is entitled to UM coverage from only one policy, the policy issued for the vehicle he was occupying at the time of the collision in which he was injured. We hold that the trial court ruled correctly. Affirmed.


Royal was involved in a collision while he was driving a van owned by his employer, Royal Commercial Refrigeration. Royal's father owns the company. Royal filed a personal injury action against the driver and owner of the other vehicle. He served State Farm with the complaint as the UM carrier. Royal sought UM benefits under the State Farm policy issued to cover the van he was driving at the time of the collision and 21 other policies State Farm had issued to his father for other vehicles.

Royal is not listed as the named insured on the declarations pages of any of the policies. He did not reside in the household of the named insured, his father. But he does qualify for the UM benefits under the policy issued on the van he was driving because he occupied the van with his father's consent.

Royal argues that he is entitled to UM benefits under the other 21 policies, although he is not an insured under the policy definitions, because the renewal notices for those policies all list him as an “other household driver,” and most of them list the van he was driving as an “other household vehicle.”

State Farm moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, holding that the only UM policy covering Royal is the policy issued for the van that he was driving at the time of the collision. Royal filed this appeal. AFFIRMED.

Wood v. State, 2022 WL 17544720, December 09, 2022
#speedy trial #ineffective assistance #criminal law

Wood found guilty of aggravated assault when he struck victim Ruiz in the head with a bat cutting through to his skull. Affirmed.

Defense Counsel’s decision not to file speedy trial demand was reasonable. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, defense counsel explained that he decided not to file a statutory speedy trial demand because the State was having trouble locating Ruiz and he wanted to “keep pressing the State” by announcing that the defense was ready every time the case was called for trial, in order to “try to either get a better deal or get [the State] to drop the case [altogether].”

No simple assault jury charge was required. “Because the undisputed evidence showed that Wood caused Ruiz serious bodily injury using a deadly weapon or an object which, when used offensively, is likely to or actually results in serious bodily injury, the trial court did not err, much less commit plain error, in failing to charge the jury on simple assault.”

State v. McKinney, 2022 WL 17258943, November 29, 2022
#criminal law #evidence of gang activity
On June 12, 2020 Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by Atlanta Police at the Wendy's restaurant at 125 University Avenue. The State argued the killing sparked organized gang violence at the intersection of 135 Pryor Road and 99 University Avenue in Atlanta. On July 4, 2020, as civil unrest in the area persisted, defendants McKinney and Conley were at the scene and aiming rifles in the direction of passing vehicles. Conley opened fire on one of the vehicles and in doing so allegedly shot and killed eight-year-old Secoriea Turner.

McKinney attempted to pursue the family's vehicle through traffic as it rushed to the hospital. The State argued McKinney was a member of the Knot Boyz Gang, a street gang from the St. Louis, Missouri area, led by his older brother, which includes individuals from various Bloods gangs; and that McKinney's social media showed numerous indicators of McKinney's gang membership, including the display of Bloods gang hand signals while wearing red clothing and holding a firearm.

The State appealed the trial court’s pre-trial ruling pursuant to OCGA §§ 16-15-1 et seq. and 24-4-418 (“Rule 418”), excluding two alleged prior acts of criminal gang activity committed by McKinney. Reversed and remanded.

(1) evidence of criminal gang activity does not require a nexus between a defendant's commission of the predicate act and an intent to further the gang activity,

(2) court must still determine whether the probative value substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.