State v. Cash
298 Ga. 90
| Ga. | 2015Background
- On May 30, 2011 Lennis Jones was fatally shot; Elgerie Cash and her daughter Jennifer Weathington were tried jointly and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in October 2013.
- Both appellees filed motions for new trial; four days before the new-trial hearing the State filed a motion to recuse the trial judge (filed after jeopardy attached).
- The trial judge dismissed the State’s recusal motion as legally insufficient and denied a certificate of immediate review; the court then held the new-trial hearing as scheduled and denied the State’s continuance request.
- After a two-day hearing, the trial court granted each appellee a new trial on the general grounds (weight/justice) and found ineffective assistance of counsel; it vacated the convictions and sentences.
- The State appealed both the denial of its motion to recuse and the grant of new trials. The Georgia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as to the recusal order for lack of statutory jurisdiction and affirmed the grant of new trials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cash/Weathington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may directly appeal denial of its motion to recuse filed after jeopardy attached | State: § 5-7-1(a)(9) permits appeals of denials of recusal; Court should hear it | Appellees: Motion was filed after jeopardy attached so § 5-7-1(a)(9) does not authorize appeal | Dismissed — State has no statutory right to appeal the post‑jeopardy recusal denial |
| Whether the collateral order doctrine supplies jurisdiction for the State’s recusal appeal | State: collateral order doctrine permits interlocutory review of important, separable rights | Appellees: State’s appellate rights are statutory and limited; collateral-order application would circumvent Chapter 7 scheme | Rejected — collateral order doctrine cannot supply a statutory right the legislature withheld |
| Whether the trial court had to rule on general grounds before receiving new evidence at the new‑trial hearing | State: trial court should rule on general grounds first; evidence not presented to jury should not influence general‑grounds ruling | Appellees: no statutory order required; judge may consider matters reasonably presented at the hearing | Rejected — no statutory requirement to bifurcate; trial court need not hold separate hearings first on general grounds |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion granting new trials on the general grounds | State: evidence (medical examiner, scene evidence) supported jury verdicts; judge abused discretion | Appellees: conflicts in evidence, credibility issues (hat recovered late, GSR, witness statements) supported judge’s thirteenth‑juror role | Affirmed — judge did not abuse broad discretion in granting new trials on general grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 278 Ga. 418 (discusses State's limited appellate rights re recusal motions)
- State v. Johnson, 292 Ga. 409 (confirms Chapter 7 statutory scheme governs State appeals)
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (establishes collateral‑order doctrine context for double jeopardy appeals)
- Sosniak v. State, 292 Ga. 35 (discusses collateral‑order doctrine and appeals as creatures of statute)
- Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738 (explains trial judge’s broad discretion to grant new trial on general grounds)
- O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361 (first grant of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Harvey v. State, 296 Ga. 823 (jeopardy attaches when jury is impaneled and sworn)
- State v. Osborne, 330 Ga. App. 688 (rejects collateral‑order jurisdiction for State’s recusal appeal)