Georgia Trial Evidence

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

It is so very important to put everything into trial of the case.  It is very difficult to win a case on appeal.  The case of Pounds v. State is a good example where the appellate court, here the Supreme Court of Georgia found error but still allowed a conviction to life in prison without parole to stand.

Can a witness testify to what another person told them even if the other person does not testify at trial?  The general rule is no they cannot.  The Supreme Court of Georgia determined it was error for the trial court to allow into trial the statements of an unavailable witness; however, the court found the error was harmless.  The Supreme Court allowed the conviction to stand.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia, decided: November 5, 2024, POUNDS v. THE STATE William C. Pounds III was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Kendra Jackson.  ​ He appealed, arguing that the trial court made several evidentiary errors and that his trial counsel was ineffective.

​Background:

    • The crimes occurred on June 12, 2015.
    • ​Pounds was indicted in December 2015 and tried in October 2017. ​
    • He was found guilty and sentenced to life without parole for malice murder. ​
    • The felony murder count was vacated by law, and the aggravated assault count merged with the malice murder count for sentencing. ​
  2. Incident Details:
    • Pounds had relationships with both Jackson and another woman, Vicinda Crawford, for 10 years.​
    • On June 12, 2015, the day Pounds was supposed to marry Crawford, Jackson was found dead in Pounds’s home. ​
    • Pounds claimed Jackson committed suicide, but his accounts of the events were inconsistent.

​Trial Evidence:

    • The State’s expert testified that Jackson did not have the gun in her hand and was not standing when shot.
    • ​Witnesses testified about Jackson’s positive outlook on life and her future plans, contradicting the suicide claim.
    • ​Jackson’s daughter testified about past incidents of violence (one of which was eight years old) by Pounds against Jackson.

​Appeal Arguments:

    • Evidentiary Errors: Pounds claimed the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay statements and other-acts evidence.
      1. The hearsay statements introduced at trial were made by Kendra Jackson to her coworkers, Laquisha Jordan and Jackie Bush.

Laquisha Jordan: Jordan testified that a few months before Jackson’s death, Jackson told her that she loved life, her kids, and had plans for the future. Jackson also said that if anyone ever claimed she committed suicide, Jordan should not believe it.

Jackie Bush: Bush testified that she reconnected with Jackson in April 2015.  Jackson expressed sadness about missing out on events in Bush’s life and was excited about participating in future events, such as shopping and decorating for Bush’s baby.

​These statements were admitted under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, but the court assumed, without deciding, that their admission might have been an error.  ​ However, any error was deemed harmless given the strong evidence against Pounds.

​The state of mind exception is a rule under the hearsay exceptions in the law of evidence.  Specifically, it allows for the admission of a statement that reflects the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition.  This can include statements about the declarant’s intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health.  The purpose of this exception is to provide insight into the declarant’s state of mind at the time the statement was made, which can be relevant to understanding their actions or intentions.  The state of mind exception is referenced under OCGA § 24-8-803 (3).

    • Ineffective Counsel: Pounds argued his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a juror who knew Jackson’s stepmother.​
  2. Conclusion:
    • The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible errors in the trial court’s decisions.

If you are looking to do a free consultation with a experienced Georgia criminal defense trial attorney please do not hesitate to contact our law office at 404-581-0999.

Was my search warrant obtained properly?

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

In order for an investigator to obtain a search warrant, they have to prove to a magistrate judge that they have probable cause that a criminal activity occurred or is occurring. Probable cause basically means that investigators can communicate a “reasonable belief” that a criminal activity is taking place. Investigating officers have to lay out this probable cause in an affidavit attached to an application for search warrant. Then, a magistrate judge will review the affidavit and application and grant or deny the warrant. In addition to the written affidavit, magistrates may consider oral testimony of the officers during the warrant application process.

In Georgia, the courts have laid out several scenarios that instruct when probable cause has or has not been communicated. For example, a tip from a confidential informant in a drug case is not enough to establish probable cause. The tip would have to be corroborated by other circumstances. However, if police come to your door and you voluntarily speak with them and admit to a crime, there is enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

If a warrant is granted and it lacked probable cause, the warrant is bad and any search resulting from the warrant violates your Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, you need a lawyer to argue that your rights have been violated and that any evidence obtained during the execution of the bad search warrant must be suppressed.

At the Law Offices of W. Scott Smith, we are experienced at spotting issues with search warrants and often successful at having evidence suppressed. Often, after a judge has ruled that evidence must be suppressed, prosecutors are more willing to negotiate or even dismiss charges because they no longer have a strong case. If you are in Cobb, Clayton. Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, or Rockdale County and are charged with a serious offense like Violation of the Georgia Controlled Substance Act, trafficking drugs, or possession of drugs with the intent to distribute and believe that your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by a warrant lacking probable cause, call us for a free consultation at 404-581-0999.

Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies Rules About Hearsay

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

In Georgia, the rules of evidence only allow hearsay evidence (a statement being made outside the current trial and being offered for its truth) if the hearsay meets certain exceptions. Each of the exceptions are based on the fact that if the statement meets one of the exceptions, it has a high level of reliability. Just a few of these exceptions include:

  • Present sense impression- This happens when a person is describing something as it is happening. This type of hearsay is though to be reliable because there is no time for the person making the statement to create a lie.
  • Excited utterance- This happens when a person makes a statement while they are under the stress or excitement of a situation. This type of hearsay is thought to be reliable because the person making the statement is still excited about the event they just witnessed or endured so they are truthfully saying something spontaneous.
  • Statements made for medical treatment- This happens when a person tells a person something so that they may be medically treated. This type of hearsay is though to be reliable because a person tells the truth if they need medical care.

In a Georgia criminal defense case, prosecutors will often try to have hearsay evidence admitted under what is called the Residual Exception Rule. The Residual Exception Rule says that statements that have guarantees of trustworthiness may be admitted after a judge (the “gatekeeper” in a trial) examines the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was made and any evidence corroborating the statement. Prosecutors will often try to use this catch-all rule to bring in the most damning evidence, even if it doesn’t fit into one of the many hearsay exceptions.

A new Georgia Supreme Court case, The State v. Kenney, tightens the reigns on the use of the Residual Exception Rule. In Kenny, the State attempted to have a hearsay statement admitted under the Residual Exception Rule. After the Court had examined the statement and found that it lacked exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness and thus was inadmissible, the State attempted to have the statement admitted under the present sense exception or excited utterance exception. The Supreme Court ruled that once the State attempts to have a hearsay statement admitted under the Residual Exception Rule, they have waived the right to try to have the statement admitted under any of the other hearsay exceptions.  The Supreme Court guides that things such as the closeness of the relationship between the witness testifying in trial and the person making the statement and the level of intoxication of the person making the statement should be considered when determining if a hearsay statement has an exceptional guarantee of trustworthiness.

As you can see, the rules of evidence in a Georgia criminal defense case, particularly the ones surrounding hearsay evidence, are complex. But, even if incriminating statements have been made about you, there are ways to prevent the jury from hearing about them. It is important to hire an attorney who is comfortable with these rules and will fight to keep unfair evidence out of your trial. The attorneys at W. Scott Smith are educated in the hearsay rules and will work with you to make sure your case is as strong as possible when it is presented to a jury. If you are charged with a crime and would like to be represented by seasoned trial attorneys, call our office today at 404-581-0999.

 

Drive Out Tags

/in , , , , , , , /by

When you buy a new (or new to you!) car in Georgia, the seller will typically provide you with a temporary tag for you to put on the new car while you register the vehicle and wait for a permanent license plate.

If you are stopped in Georgia with a temporary license plate and issued a citation related to the license plate/registration, you may have been stopped without cause.

Under Georgia law, the purchaser of a new or used vehicle may operate it with a temporary plate during the period within which the purchaser is required to register under law. The temporary plate must bear the dealer’s name, location, and an expiration date 45 days from the date of purchase. If a police officer stops you for having a temporary tag, under Georgia case law, this is an improper stop. The Georgia Court of Appeals held in a case called Hinton v. State that stopping a car with a drive-out tag solely to ascertain whether the driver is complying with the vehicle registration laws is not authorized. Instead, the police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the driver is driving with an invalid drive-out tag.  That is, the officer must reasonably believe that the tag was altered, fake, or does not comply with the requirements above.

If you are stopped after buying a new car and the officer tells you he wanted to check your tags, his reason for stopping you is invalid, and if he gives you a citation for anything (even if it has nothing to do with your tags!) you may have a valid defense to the case or to have any evidence collected thrown out.

Georgia DUI Law: Challenging the Stop, Improper Turn

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Georgia DUI investigations usually begin with a routine traffic stop. At a minimum, in order to stop you and your vehicle, the stopping officer needs to have “reasonable and articulable suspicion” to believe a crime has, or is about to be committed. An officer normally satisfies this requirement by observing a traffic or equipment violation. However, if it is determined the officer did NOT have reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop your vehicle; this could result in the suppression of evidence and the ultimate dismissal of a DUI charge.

Therefore, it is crucial to examine the most common types of traffic violations that result in a DUI investigation. This article serves to inform you of what type of things police officers are looking for when stopping for improper turn.

The Offense

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-120 requires the driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection to do the following:

(1) RIGHT TURN. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway;

(2) LEFT TURN.

(A) As used in this paragraph, the term “extreme left-hand lane” means the lane furthest to the left that is lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction as the turning vehicle. In the event of multiple lanes, the second extreme left-hand lane shall be the lane to the right of the extreme left-hand lane that is lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction as the turning vehicle. The third extreme left-hand lane shall be the lane to the right of the second extreme left-hand lane and so forth.

(B) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left shall approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the turning vehicle. Whenever practicable, the left turn shall be made to the left of the center of the intersection and so as to exit the intersection or other location in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction as the turning vehicle on the roadway being entered.

(C) In the event of multiple turn lanes, the driver of a vehicle turning left shall exit the intersection in the same relative travel lane as the vehicle entered the intersection. If the vehicle is in the second extreme left-hand lane entering the intersection the vehicle shall exit the intersection in the second extreme left-hand lane. Where there are multiple lanes of travel in the same direction safe for travel, a vehicle shall not be permitted to make a lane change once the intersection has been entered.

The most common way to violate this law is when you make a “wide turn.” A wide turn is when you start your turn in one lane and drift over into another lane while executing or finishing your turn. This is a common maneuver you will see on the road and a close look at the language of the law prohibits this conduct.

Interestingly, in State v. Morgan, 260 Ga. App. 263, 581 S.E.2d 296 (2003), the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s suppression of the traffic stop. Morgan was stopped for making a right hand turn into the left lane of two eastbound lanes of Hwy 278, then immediately got into a left turn lane to turn onto Hazelbrand Rd. approximately 100 yards from where he entered Hwy 278; the turn was reasonable and the reasonable suspicion for the stop was unreasonable. Because the spirit of our traffic laws is to ensure safe and reasonable driving among motorists, the Court decided, given the facts of Morgan and the reasonableness of his driving, there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle even though Morgan made a wide turn.

Challenging the Stop

Like any traffic stop,  is important to challenge the officer’s observations to determine whether the stopping officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion necessary to stop your car. The most successful way to accomplish this is to challenge the officer’s perception. Key issues include, but are not limited to:

  • Distance between the officer and your vehicle
  • Angles of officer’s observation
  • Traffic conditions (no traffic makes an improper turn more reasonable and safe)
  • Lighting
  • The mechanics of the turn

Contact Us

If you or someone you know has been arrested for driving under the influence, contact the law firm of W. Scott Smith at 404.581.0999 today for a free case evaluation. You’ll find a local Atlanta DUI attorney ready to aggressively fight on your behalf. You can also find out more detailed information about Atlanta laws here.

Probation Revocation and Parole

/in , , , , /by

Can a judge revoke my probation when I have allegedly violated probation after being sentenced but I have not yet started my probation?  Can a judge revoke my probation where it goes non-report or suspended upon completion of doing an act (classes, drug screens or evaluation).

The question requires some explanation as to situations as to where this scenario may rear its ugly head.  Defendant is sentenced in one county to a sentence of 10 years to serve 2, balanced probated.  While client is in prison or on parole he commits a new crime; ie he gets charged with possession of drugs in prison.  Even though he has not started probation as he is under the department of corrections supervision he can still be revoked on the county level by the judge.  Here are a couple of additional scenarios where the judge has the ability to revoke probation even though you are not technically on probation:

Judge sentences you in Cobb County to probation to run Consecutive to your sentence in Paulding County.  You are currently serving time in Paulding County and have not yet started serving your probation in Cobb.  Nonetheless, you can be revoked in Paulding and Cobb for committing a new crime.

Similarly, where a judge suspends a sentence.  For example you get 5 year sentence suspended upon completion of an alcohol evaluation.  You violate your probation shortly after being placed on the suspended sentence – in this scenario you can be revoked for the five years less any time that has elapsed since your sentence started even if you have already completed the evaluation – where the court has not signed an order allowing suspension to commence.

OCGA 17-10-1 (a) provides: that the trial court has the power and authority to suspend or probate all or any part of the entire sentence under such rules and regulations as the judge deems proper, including the authority to revoke the  [*630]  suspension or probation when the defendant has violated any of the rules and regulations prescribed by the court, even before the probationary period has beg

un.

Here are the reasons the court of appeals found persuasive on why  you can still be revoked even though you are not technically on reporting probation:

While probation may be considered a mild form of ambulatory punishment imposing meaningful restraints, its true nature is an act of judicial grace. The Legislature has granted to the judiciary discretionary power to grant probation as a means of testing a convicted defendant’s integrity and future good behavior. Unlike parole, granted by an administrative agency, probation is granted by the court when the sentencing judge deems the protection of society does not demand immediate incarceration. In cases where a convicted defendant’s “future good behavior” has already been compromised by the commission of another criminal act even before the formal probationary period begins, a trial court should not be required to allow such  defendant to serve a previously imposed probated sentence when the court deems the protection of society demands revocation.

by Scott Smith

 

DUI Less Safe

/in , , , , /by

by Casey Cleaver

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 prohibits a person from driving or being in actual physical control of a moving vehicle when alcohol or a drug makes it “less safe” for that person to drive. The wording of the statute begs two major questions: (1) What does “less safe” mean? (2) How can the State prove alcohol or drugs made someone a less safe driver? This article serves to answer these questions.

In Jones v. State, the Georgia Court of Appeals held that the DUI statute does not require a finding that the driver was unsafe; it only requires a finding that the person was a less safe driver than they would have been were they not under the influence of alcohol [or drugs].[1] Therefore, there is no requirement that the person actually commit an unsafe act.[2]

In State v. Kachwalla the Supreme Court of Georgia held that “less safe to drive” under paragraph (a)(2) of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 and “rendered incapable of driving safely” under paragraph (a)(6) of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 set the same standard of impairment necessary to establish that a driver was driving under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substance.[3]

Case law indicates that circumstantial evidence, opinion testimony, and/or expert witness testimony can be sufficient to prove that drinking alcohol or doing drugs made a defendant a less safe driver.[4] These cases, however, seem to avoid the issue of how, if a witness does not know a defendant’s usual driving habits (e.g. he/she usually speeds, weaves, fails to use turn signals, etc.) that witness can determine whether in a particular situation, consumption of alcohol rendered the driver less safe. It seems necessary that in order to prove alcohol or drugs made someone a less safe driver, the State would also have to provide evidence of the defendant’s normal driving habits and then compare those normal habits against the driving observed by law enforcement.[5]

If you or someone you know has been charged with DUI under the “less safe” provision contact our office today for a free consultation.

[1] Jones v. State, 207 Ga. App. 469 (1993)

[2] Moss v. State, 194 Ga. App. 181 (1990)

[3] State v. Kachwalla, 274 Ga. 886, 887-888 (2002) (stating, “less safe to drive” and “rendered incapable of driving safely” are equivalent standards, legally, historically, and semantically)

[4] Dudley v. State, 204 Ga. App. 327 (1992) (holding expert witness testimony that the amount of cocaine found in defendant’s system would render him a “less safe” driver was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt); Geoffrion v. State, 224 Ga. App. 775, 779 (1997) (holding testimony that the defendant weaved and crossed the centerline was sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict that defendant was a less safe driver); Duggan v. State, 225 Ga. App. 291, 293 (1997) (holding that when there is evidence that the defendant has been drinking, evidence of the manner of driving, including excessive speed, may be taken into consideration to determine whether the intoxicant affected him to the extent that he drove less safely); Hamilton v. State, 228 Ga. App. 285 (1997) (holding officer testimony regarding his observations of defendant and defendant’s performance on Field Sobriety Tests was sufficient to establish the defendant was intoxicated to the point that he was less safe to drive).

[5] See Peck v. State, 245 Ga. App. 599 (2000)

Forgery Laws in Georgia

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

by Ryan Walsh

There are four degrees to the offense of Forgery in the State of Georgia.

Forgery in the first and second degree involves the making, possession or alteration of a writing other than a check in a fake name or in a manner that alleges the document was made by another person at another time without the authority of that other person. It is forgery in the first degree if that writing is used, presented , or delivered; and forgery in the second degree if it is never used, presented or delivered.

To be found guilty of forgery in the first or second degree you have to have knowledge that the writing is forged and that you have made, possessed or altered the document with the intent to defraud another party.

Forgery in the third and fourth degrees involve the same elements of forgery discussed above but the writing involved is a check.  If the check is for $1,500 or more or you have ten or more checks in your possession then you will be charged with forgery in the third degree. If the check is for less than $1,500 or you have less than ten checks in your possession then you will be charged with forgery in the fourth degree.

Forgery in the first through third degrees is a felony offense in the State of Georgia. Forgery in the fourth degree is a misdemeanor offense.

If you’ve been contacted by a law enforcement official about a potential issue at a bank it is important that you exercise your right to remain silent and call a lawyer immediately to discuss your case, your options, and potential outcomes.

Being convicted of a forgery charge can impact your ability to gain future employment or obtain professional certifications in the State of Georgia.

Our office of Georgia criminal defense attorneys have experience in defending forgery and fraud crimes. Call us today at 404-581-0999 for a free consultation.

Privacy Rights- Carpenter vs. United States

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

by John Lovell

Last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the privacy rights of individuals. The Government, without a warrant or a showing of probable cause, issued an order to a cell phone company to provide Timothy Carpenter’s cell site data. The Government sought to gather the extensive records, including the location of Carpenter’s phones. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that Mr. Carpenter had a privacy right in his phone records. For the Government to seize these records, the Government needed to present to a magistrate a warrant based on sworn testimony establishing probable cause. The Court noted that a significant factor causing the War for Independence was Britain’s use of warrantless searches … Americans have never been fond of warrantless searches!

Do not be quick to conclude that this ruling makes it necessary for the police to obtain a warrant for all types of stored records. Your privacy could still be affected. Previously, the Court has held that a warrant is not necessary to obtain records of the numbers called by a cell phone-not the content of the calls but just the fact that the “target” phone called particular numbers at particular times. The Court has also held that other stored records such as bank records may be obtained without a warrant. A couple of years ago, the Court ruled that a warrant is required to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle. The critical distinction that the Court has made is in information that reveals the location of the subject. We have a greater expectation of privacy in where we are than is more typical records such as numbers called and even bank records. Protect your privacy rights today and call Peachstate Lawyer for your FREE consultation!

Search Warrants and Social Media in Georgia Criminal Cases

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

by Mary Agramonte

Social media has become, for many of us, a central part of our lives. We use Facebook to share and view photos of friends and family, and even to catch up on daily news. We use Snapchat to send live photos or short clips and videos to those in our circle. Instagram exists to view photos of friends and strangers, and even to gain inspiration for food, travel, and lifestyle.

These social networking sites are used and enjoyed by people in all walks of life. Consequently, as the use by the general population increases, so does use for those engaged in drug dealing, gang activity, and other criminal acts. For this reason, social media and apps once thought to be private are becoming the key pieces of evidence as law enforcement is obtaining this information through search warrants. Search warrant allow police to conduct searches of people and their belongings for evidence of a crime and they are now being used to gain entry into your Facebook, Snapchat, and other sites.

Snapchat has recently come out to say that 350 million Snaps are sent every single day. Before these fleeting photos are opened, they exist on Snapchat’s server awaiting for the person on the other end to open it.  Some unopened Snaps, they’ve admitted, have been handed over to law enforcement through search warrants.

Facebook is no different and law enforcement is using the site regularly to investigate crimes. While a law enforcement agency is free to look at your public site, they are even able to obtain a search warrant even for the private aspects of your account. A recent case in the 11th Circuit, United States v. Blake, involved search warrants for email and Facebook accounts.  Law enforcement in Blake sought essentially every piece of data on the person’s Facebook account. The court stated that the search warrants were overly broad and stated they must still be specific and limited in scope. The data was still fair evidence despite this, as the officers relied on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and the State was allowed to use the evidence from their Facebook account against them.

There tends to be a false sense of privacy for those engaged in sending Snaps, Facebooking, or Instagramming. These ‘private’ sites and photos can and do become to subject of search warrants in law enforcement investigations, and the biggest piece of evidence in a case might just end up being something you posted  or sent with the belief it would remain private.