The Georgia Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which a claim or error during jury instructions will be reviewed on appeal when the attorney did not object to the jury instruction at trial.  State v. Kelly, S11A0734.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has ruled that the pattern jury instruction on prior consistent statements should no longer be given.  Stephens v. State, S10G1958. 

The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld a judge’s decision to admit conversations the defendant had with an attorney who he was trying to hire.  Rogers v. State, S11A0659.  While in jail awaiting trial, Rogers placed a telephone call to his girlfriend.  The girlfriend then created a three-way call to an attorney.  During the conversation Rogers made statements that were introduced as evidence against him at trial.

 A defendant claimed that the judge interfered with his right to a thorough cross-examination by repeatedly interrupting his attorney and cutting short the lawyer’s questions of the lead investigator in the case.  Vandal v. State, S1A0810. 

A defendant who at age 14 attacked and robbed a woman stealing her car and money from her purse claimed that the 30 year prison sentence without parole he received was cruel and unusual.  Middleton v. State, A11A1558.

The agreement between one person to buy drugs and another to sell the buyer drugs does not establish that the two acted in concert so as to support a charge of conspiracy to distribute drugs.  Darville v. State, S11A0993.

When a  victim suffers multiple wounds inflicted in quick succession, each infliction of injury is not a separate assault.  However, where a series of wounds are separated by a deliberate interval and a non-fatal injury is sustained prior to the interval, the earlier non-fatal injury can be the basis for a separate conviction of aggravated assault.  Culpepper v. State, S11A1338.  The act of firing a weapon into a group makes each individual in the group a separate victim justifying a separate charge of aggravated assault for each victim.  Martin-Argaw v. State, A11A0935.