The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction of Jamal Kerns, who was found guilty of killing his cousin and assaulting another man in separate incidents in 2017. Justice Colvin authored the opinion in *Kerns v. The State*, decided Feb. 3, 2026.
Kerns was convicted of the malice murder of his cousin, Keschon Kerns, and the subsequent aggravated assault of Malik Golar. The crimes occurred on May 20, 2017, and June 6, 2017, respectively. A DeKalb County grand jury returned an indictment on Aug. 31, 2017, charging Kerns with six counts including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault charges against both victims, and firearm possession during the commission of felonies.
Following a jury trial from Nov. 29 to Dec. 3, 2021, the jury found Kerns guilty on all charges. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder and imposed a consecutive five-year term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony related to his cousin's death. The felony murder charge was vacated by operation of law, and the aggravated assault charge against Keschon Kerns was merged into the malice murder conviction.
For the crimes against Golar, the trial court imposed a consecutive 20-year prison term for aggravated assault and a suspended five-year term for firearm possession during the commission of a felony.
Kerns filed a timely motion for a new trial through new counsel, asserting that the trial court erred by violating his right to be present at trial. He claimed violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section I of the Georgia Constitution.
The case represents another instance where Georgia's highest court has reviewed claims of constitutional violations in criminal proceedings. The right to be present at trial is a fundamental component of due process, ensuring defendants can confront witnesses and participate in their defense.
The Supreme Court of Georgia's decision comes nearly nine years after the initial crimes were committed and more than four years after the jury trial concluded. The lengthy appellate process reflects the complexity of capital and serious felony cases in the state's judicial system.
Under Georgia law, defendants convicted of malice murder face either life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or life with the possibility of parole. In this case, Kerns received the latter sentence, meaning he could potentially be eligible for parole consideration after serving a minimum term.
The consecutive sentences for the firearm charges and the assault on Golar significantly extend Kerns' time behind bars. The 20-year consecutive term for the aggravated assault conviction ensures substantial additional punishment beyond the life sentence for the murder.
Criminal appeals in Georgia typically focus on procedural errors, constitutional violations, or sufficiency of evidence. The Supreme Court of Georgia serves as the final arbiter for the most serious criminal cases in the state, including those involving murder convictions.
The court's opinion is subject to modification under Supreme Court Rule 27, which allows for motions for reconsideration and editorial revisions. The final version will be published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports and ultimately in bound volumes that constitute the official record.
This case adds to the body of Georgia precedent regarding defendants' rights to be present during criminal proceedings. Such cases often involve situations where defendants are removed from courtrooms due to disruptive behavior or fail to appear for portions of their trials.
The affirmation of Kerns' conviction provides closure for the victims' families while upholding the integrity of the criminal justice process. The case demonstrates the thoroughness of Georgia's appellate review system, which ensures that serious criminal convictions withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Defense counsel's challenge regarding the right to be present highlights ongoing tensions in criminal procedure between maintaining courtroom order and preserving defendants' constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will likely influence how trial courts handle similar situations in future proceedings.
The resolution of *Kerns v. The State* represents the conclusion of a lengthy legal process that began with tragic violence in 2017 and culminated in the state's highest court affirming the jury's verdict and the trial court's sentencing decisions.