Case Law Update week of October 1-5, 2012

Case law update…Week of October 1-5, 2012

Grill v. State, S12A1177 (10/1/12): Defendant convicted for two counts of aggravated assault when he fired at the victim in quick succession. Citing a prior case, Supreme Court vacated one of the counts holding “[w]hen a victim suffers multiple wounds inflicted in quick succession, each infliction of injury does not constitute a separate assault.”

Simmons v. State, S12A0979 (10/1/12): As the first appearance judge was reading the charges and rights, Defendant spontaneously stated “I”m guilty, I’m guilty”. Supreme Court held these statements are admissible.

Johnson v, State, S12A1225 (10/1/12): Juror allowed to remain on the jury in spite of the fact that he said said that he expects the defendant to testify. Supreme Court held that juror’s later statement that he would do his best to follow the law as instructed was enough for him not to be struck for cause.

McBride v. State, S12A0843 (10/1/12): Evidence properly excluded where Defendant attempted to introduce evidence that the victim was smoking marijuana or distributing drugs at the time of his demise. Supreme Court held that there was insufficient factual nexus between this evidence and the conclusion for which it was being offered.

Leger v. State, S12A0833 (10/1/12): Supreme Court held evidence properly admitted: (1) A book titled FUGITIVE: How to Run, Hide, and Survive that was found in Defendant’s house since it is potentially evidence of flight which is relevant to question of guilt; (2) Defendant’s tattoo “God forgive me” that he got sometime after victim’s death and before his jury trial.

State v. Wilson, A12A1122 (9/25/12): Good and brief explanation of general and special demurrers.

State v. Wolf, A12A1117 (9/28/12): MTS upheld. Mailman calls the police after observing a vehicle with 3 occupants leaving a residence (suspected burglary). A day later, officer patrolling area (area with high number of burglaries) sees the same type vehicle and stops it. Drugs suppressed as Court of Appeals finds no a/s or p/c. [great opinion to review]