State v. Murray

Supreme Court of Georgia

State v. Murray

687 S.E.2d 790, 286 Ga. 258, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 86, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 782

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 3, 2009

DocketS10M0390

StatusPublished

Cited by42 cases

This text of 687 S.E.2d 790 (State v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Murray, 687 S.E.2d 790, 286 Ga. 258, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 86, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 782 (Ga. 2009).

Pincite

Opinions

Thompson, Justice.

The State sought and this Court granted an emergency super-sedeas with regard to a contempt order issued against an assistant district attorney in the underlying murder prosecution. In light of the dissenting opinion, which posits that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the finding of contempt bears no relation to the murder case, we are compelled to re-examine our longstanding order declaring that all murder cases, and all interlocutory appeals in murder cases, be transferred to this Court. State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984). We conclude that we do have jurisdiction of this appeal and that the dissenters’ position is contrary to Thornton and its progeny.

[259]*2591. In Thornton, this Court instructed the Court of Appeals to transfer all murder cases, “and all pre-conviction appeals in murder cases,” to this Court. Over the next 25 years, this Court, and the Court of Appeals, adhered to this instruction, whether or not “the judgment at issue is pre-conviction,”¹ or the “appeal arises from a collateral order.”² Thus, if “the murder count of the indictment remains pending below, jurisdiction of [the] appeal lies in this Court.”³

The proper focus is “on the nature of the underlying action.”⁴ If the underlying action is a murder case, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal, regardless of whether the order being appealed is based on facts having some bearing on the underlying criminal trial. Thus, this Court exercised jurisdiction in a murder case where a newspaper reporter appealed from an order ruling that the reporter’s qualified privilege was inapplicable.⁵ Likewise, we exercised jurisdiction where, in the midst of a murder prosecution, a television station was denied media access.⁶

Although the appeal in this case arises from a collateral order of contempt, it is undisputed that the nature of the underlying action is a criminal prosecution. It follows that the order of contempt is a matter lying within this Court’s jurisdiction.

2. It now appears that the order granting the emergency motion for supersedeas was moot at the time it was entered. Accordingly, the original order is hereby vacated.

Order granting emergency supersedeas vacated.

All the Justices concur, except Hines, Melton and Nahmias, JJ., who dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Thompson, Justice.

The State sought and this Court granted an emergency super-sedeas with regard to a contempt order issued against an assistant district attorney in the underlying murder prosecution. In light of the dissenting opinion, which posits that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the finding of contempt bears no relation to the murder case, we are compelled to re-examine our longstanding order declaring that all murder cases, and all interlocutory appeals in murder cases, be transferred to this Court. State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984). We conclude that we do have jurisdiction of this appeal and that the dissenters’ position is contrary to Thornton and its progeny.

[259]*2591. In Thornton, this Court instructed the Court of Appeals to transfer all murder cases, “and all pre-conviction appeals in murder cases,” to this Court. Over the next 25 years, this Court, and the Court of Appeals, adhered to this instruction, whether or not “the judgment at issue is pre-conviction,”¹ or the “appeal arises from a collateral order.”² Thus, if “the murder count of the indictment remains pending below, jurisdiction of [the] appeal lies in this Court.”³

The proper focus is “on the nature of the underlying action.”⁴ If the underlying action is a murder case, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal, regardless of whether the order being appealed is based on facts having some bearing on the underlying criminal trial. Thus, this Court exercised jurisdiction in a murder case where a newspaper reporter appealed from an order ruling that the reporter’s qualified privilege was inapplicable.⁵ Likewise, we exercised jurisdiction where, in the midst of a murder prosecution, a television station was denied media access.⁶

Although the appeal in this case arises from a collateral order of contempt, it is undisputed that the nature of the underlying action is a criminal prosecution. It follows that the order of contempt is a matter lying within this Court’s jurisdiction.

2. It now appears that the order granting the emergency motion for supersedeas was moot at the time it was entered. Accordingly, the original order is hereby vacated.

Order granting emergency supersedeas vacated.

All the Justices concur, except Hines, Melton and Nahmias, JJ., who dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 S.E.2d 790, 286 Ga. 258, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 86, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murray-ga-2009.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack