Duke v. State
In Duke, the Court dismissed a request to appeal the trial court's decision denying state funds to pay expert witnesses in his defense. The underlying issue concerns a defendant's access to state funds to be used in his defense when he obtains pro-bono rather than state-appointed counsel. The case is notable, however, because the Court overruled its 2000 decision in Waldrip v. Head.
Waldrip held that the Georgia Supreme Court had "inherent authority" to decide to hear an interlocutory appeal. OCGA 5-6-34 et seq. provides the basic mechanisms of appellate review, providing that if an order is not "final" (meaning there are issues or parties remaining in the case) a party seeking appellate review must obtain a certificate of immediate review from the trial court. If the trial court grants the certificate within 10 days, then the plaintiff may ask the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court (as appropriate) to review the case. If the trial court does not issue the certificate, however, the would-be-appellant is out of luck; there is no other mechanism for interlocutory appeal, and the statute does not provide for review of the failure to issue the certificate. Waldrip purported to allow a party whose certificate had been denied to go directly to the Supreme Court and ask for review.
In overruling Waldrip, the Court reasoned that the statutory requirements for interlocutory appeal are jurisdictional. The Court rejected the notion that it had power to override the General Assembly's policy choice to prioritize the trial court's discretion in the interlocutory appeal process over the efficiency of hearing an appeal right away.
Read the full opinion here
State v. Burns
Burns deals with the admissibility of evidence that the alleged victim of sexual assault crimes has made false accusations before. In Smith v. State, 259 Ga. 135 (1989) the Court held that a defendant in a prosecution for sexual offenses may introduce evidence that the alleged victim has made false accusations in the past, both to attack their credibility and to prove the defendant's innocence. The Smith court relied both on the evidence code (OCGA 24-4-403, allowing for the exclusion of relevant evidence where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice) and the defendant's constitutional rights to confront witnesses against him and present a full defense.
Writing for the Court, Justice Benham held that Smith's constitutional holding swept too broadly and must be overruled, but affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling on admissibility because Smith's interpretation of the rape shield law survived the passage of the new evidence code. The opinion criticizes Smith's lack of nuance and analysis, explaining:
[t]he
holding was reached without any meaningful analysis and without consideration of whether the
relevant rules of evidence (or other applicable statutes) could pass muster under the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments; our blanket holding that rules of evidence must ‘yield’ to constitutional
concerns – and must permit the admission of evidence that may be considered for both
impeachment and as substantive evidence – was unwarranted and incorrect.”
Indeed, Justice Benham wrote, the United States Supreme Court has explained that the rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence based on the judgement that it's probativity was overborne by other factors.
Read the full opinion here
Murder Convictions
S18G1007. MCKIE v. THE STATE
S19A0118, S19A0119. BROXTON v. THE STATE (two cases)
S19A0164, S19A0416. DAVIS v. THE STATE (two cases)
S19A0360. SWANSON v. THE STATE
S19A0367. CLARK v. THE STATE
S19A0605. COOPER v. THE STATE
S19A0674. TOOKES v. THE STATE
S19A0790, S19A0907. STROZIER v. THE STATE (two cases)
S19Y0792. IN THE MATTER OF LESLEY ANNIS
S19Y0823. IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER E. KAHN
No comments:
Post a Comment