Morgan v. State, 307 Ga. 889

In October 2015 Jokeera Morgan drowned her two infant daughters, then called 911 and confessed; medical examiner confirmed drowning.
Morgan asserted a special plea of insanity; experts (both defense and State) agreed she was in a depressive episode of bipolar I disorder but disputed severity, malingering, and whether she could discern right from wrong.
At trial a jury found Morgan guilty but mentally ill of malice murder and related counts; she received concurrent life sentences and moved for a new trial, which the court denied.
On appeal Morgan challenged: (1) exclusion of a prior psychologist’s written opinion that she “now appears to be competent and knows right from wrong,” (2) admission of police body‑camera video recordings showing the crime scene and CPR efforts, and (3) a jury charge about considering punishment (she later withdrew the third claim).
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed: it treated exclusion of the prior opinion as harmless error, held most of the body‑cam recordings admissible but that a four‑minute close‑up CPR segment was erroneously admitted (also harmless), and provided guidance about managing body‑camera evidence at trial.

Issue	Morgan's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Exclusion of prior psychologist’s opinion that Morgan “knew right from wrong” (two years earlier)	Statement was relevant to show past incapacity and could support inference of incapacity at the time of the crimes; Rule 704(b) shouldn’t bar opinion about a different time	The statement was a legal conclusion for the jury and admitting it would violate Rule 704(b); evidence about past competency was cumulative	Even if exclusion was error, it was harmless: the redacted report and extensive expert testimony already supplied the same or stronger evidence about her mental state
Admission of police body‑camera recordings (two videos)	Entire videos were more prejudicial than probative under OCGA § 24‑4‑403 and cumulative given Morgan’s confession	Videos were relevant to manner of death, crime‑scene condition, Morgan’s demeanor, and to rebut insanity; probative value outweighed prejudice	First video and initial portions of second video were admissible; however a ~4‑minute close‑up CPR segment of the second video was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded. Admission of that portion was harmless given the record
Jury instruction on considering punishment during guilt deliberations	(Claim later withdrawn)	Foster v. State controlled and foreclosed the claim	Morgan conceded the claim after Foster; Court did not consider it further

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (prejudice that invites decision on improper emotional grounds)
Varner v. State, 306 Ga. 726 (admissibility of police body‑camera recording relevant to crime scene)
Davis v. State, 306 Ga. 140 (gruesome visual evidence admissible if relevant to identity or manner of death)
Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (probative value assessed by marginal worth and need for evidence)
Pierce v. State, 302 Ga. 389 (definition and limits of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
Kirby v. State, 304 Ga. 472 (harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional errors)
Peterson v. State, 274 Ga. 165 (application of harmless‑error analysis where excluded evidence was cumulative)