Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Payne v. State
, No. 2019CR0173714 (May 5, 2026)
Case details
Full caption
Hannah Renee Payne v. The State
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Georgia (GA)
Court
Georgia Supreme Court
Decided
May 5, 2026
Disposition
Vacated and Remanded
NOTICE:
This
opinion
is
subject
to
modification
resulting
from
motions
for
reconsideration
under
Supreme
Court
Rule
27,
the
Court’s
reconsideration,
and
editorial
revis
ions
by
the
Reporter
of
Decisions.
The
version
of
the
opinion
published
in
the
Advance
Sheets
for
the
Georgia
Repo
rts,
designated
as
the
“Final
Copy,”
will
replace
any
prior
version
on
the
Court’s
website
and
docket.
A
bound
volume
of
the
Georgia
Reports
will
contain
the
final
and
official
text
of
the
opinion.
In
the
Supreme
Court
of
Georgia
No.
S26A0459
Hannah
Renee
Payne
v.
T
he
State
On
Appeal
from
the
Superior
Court
of
Clayton
County
No.
2019CR0173714
Argued:
March
18,
2026
-
De
cide
d:
May
5,
2026
L
AND
,
Justice.
Hannah
Payne
was
sentenced
to
life
in
prison
plus
13
years
for
the
murder
and
false
imprisonment
of
Kenneth
Herring
and
the
possession
of
a
firearm
during
the
commission
of
a
felony.
In
response
to
Payne’s
motion
for
new
trial,
the
assistant
district
at-
torney
assigned
to
the
case,
Deborah
Leslie,
filed
a
brief
that
con-
tained
non-existent
cases
and
case
s
that
do
not
stand
for
the
prop-
osition
asserted
in
the
brief.
In
an
order
largely
prepared
by
ADA
Leslie,
the
trial
court
denied
Payn
e’s
motion
for
new
trial.
That
order
contained
citations
to
non-ex
istent
cases
and
cases
that
do
not
stand
for
the
proposition
asserted
in
the
order.
In
response
to
Payne’s
appeal,
ADA
Leslie
once
again
cited
cases
that
do
not
stand
for
the
proposition
asserted.
As
a
result
of
these
filings,
we
have
been
sidetracked
from
our
obligation
of
resolving
the
merits
of
Payne’s
appeal
and
have
had
to
devote
significant
time
and
re-
sources
to
the
discovery
of
this
misconduct
and
deciding
what
to
do
about
it.
As
outlined
below,
we
admonish
ADA
Leslie
and
the
Clayton
County
District
Attorney’s
office;
we
sanction
ADA
Leslie
and
suspend
her
privilege
to
practice
in
our
Court;
and
we
vacate
the
trial
court’s
order
denying
Pa
yne’s
motion
for
new
trial
and
remand
the
case
to
the
trial
court
with
instruction
that
it
issue
a
new
order
that
does
not
contain
the
citation
of
fake
cases
or
other
misattributed
case
citations.
1.
On
March
20,
2026,
after
oral
argument
in
this
case,
this
Court
entered
an
order
directing
counsel
for
the
State
to
file
a
supplemental
brief
explaining,
among
other
things,
how
the
Sep
-
tember
12,
2025
order
of
the
tria
l
court
denying
Payne’s
motion
for
new
trial
(which
reflects
that
ADA
Leslie
prepared
that
order)
came
to
include
nine
case
citation
s
that
either
do
not
exist
or
do
not
stand
for
the
propositions
for
which
they
are
cited.
1
On
March
27,
2026,
Clayton
County
ADA
Leslie
filed
a
sup
-
plemental
brief
and
affidavit
in
which
she
acknowledged
using
artificial
intelligence
software
to
draft
the
State’s
briefs
in
oppo
-
sition
to
Payne’s
motion
for
ne
w
trial
and
the
trial
court’s
pro
-
posed
order
denying
the
motion
for
new
trial.
ADA
Leslie
acknowledged
that
the
case
citati
ons
generated
by
artificial
intel
-
ligence
software
were
not
independently
verified
before
inclusion
in
the
State’s
briefs
or
proposed
order
and
represented
that
she
had
implemented
safeguards
to
ensure
that
fictitious
or
misattributed
authorities
would
not
appear
in
any
future
filings.
In
addition
to
the
nine
cases
listed
in
this
Court’s
March
20,
2025,
order,
ADA
Leslie
identified
twelve
additional
cases
in
her
brief
-
ing
before
the
trial
court
that
she
acknowledges
were
generated
1
When
asked
at
oral
argument
whether
she
included
these
citations
in
the
version
of
the
order
submitted
to
the
trial
court,
ADA
Leslie
responded
“No,
your
honor,
I
do
not
believe
so,
they
were
not.
I
did
prepare
an
order.
That
order
was
revised.”
When
this
Court
pointed
out
that
these
same
cases
were
cited
in
the
State’s
briefing
opposing
Payne’s
motion
for
new
trial,
ADA
Leslie
offered
to
provide
this
Court
with
supplemental
briefing
on
this
issue.
2
by
artificial
intelligence
softwa
re,
were
not
independently
veri
-
fied,
and
do
not
stand
for
the
propositions
for
which
they
were
offered.
2
ADA
Leslie
also
withdrew
reliance
on
nine
authorities
cited
in
the
State’s
December
16,
2025,
appellate
brief
before
this
Court
which
she
stated
“were
cited
for
propositions
not
supported
by
the
actual
holdings
of
those
decisions;
case
citations
that
do
not
correspond
to
existing
Georgi
a
or
federal
precedent;
and/or
case
quotations
that
do
not
accurately
reflect
the
language
of
the
cited
opinions[.]”
This
Court
has
reviewed
the
filings
by
the
State
in
opposi
-
tion
to
the
motion
for
new
trial,
the
trial
court’s
order
denying
the
motion
for
new
trial,
and
the
Stat
e’s
briefing
before
this
Court.
These
filings,
as
well
as
the
trial
court’s
order,
contain
multiple
case
citations
whic
h
either
do
not
exist,
or
which
exist
but
do
not
support
the
propositions
of
law
for
which
they
are
cited.
While
we
have
no
rule
against
the
responsibl
e
use
of
artificial
intelligence
software
by
attorneys,
citing
case
s
that
do
not
exist
or
do
not
sup
-
port
the
proposition
for
which
they
are
cited
is
a
violation
of
this
Court’s
rules
and
falls
far
beneat
h
the
conduct
we
expect
from
Georgia
lawyers.
See
Supreme
Co
urt
Rule
7.
Given
the
substan
-
tial
number
of
wholly
inaccurate
case
citations
found
in
these
fil
-
ings,
and
the
fact
that
counsel
for
the
State
did
not
independently
verify
the
accuracy
of
these
cita
tions,
the
matter
poses
a
serious
concern
for
us
and
for
the
integrity
of
these
proceedings
and
calls
2
One
of
the
additional
cases
identified
by
ADA
Leslie
as
not
standing
for
the
propositions
for
which
they
were
cited,
Bryant
v.
State
,
268
Ga.
App.
362
(2004),
appears
not
to
exist
at
all.
Bryant
is
also
cited
in
the
trial
court’s
September
12,
2025,
order.
In
addition
to
this
case,
we
have
identified
at
least
one
additional
case
cited
in
the
State’s
briefing
before
the
trial
court,
Hamm
v.
State
,
294
Ga.
791,
795
(2014),
which
does
not
stand
for
the
proposition
for
which
it
is
cited;
this
case
citation
also
appears
in
the
trial
court’s
order.
3
for
us
to
exercise
our
inherent
authority
to
control
these
proceed
-
ings
in
the
furtherance
of
justice,
as
well
as
the
authority
granted
to
us
by
Supreme
Court
Rule
7
to
sanction
attorneys
who
violate
our
rules.
See
OCGA
§
15-1-3(4).
2.
We
admonish
ADA
Leslie
and
the
Clayton
County
Dis
-
trict
Attorney’s
Office
for
failing
to
verify
the
accuracy
of
case
ci
-
tations
and
then
including
a
su
bstantial
number
of
inaccurate
case
citations
in
their
filings
before
this
Court
and
the
trial
court.
See
Supreme
Court
Rule
7
(“Parties
and
counsel
are
responsible
for
ensuring
that
their
filings
with
the
Court,
including
briefs,
shall
be
carefully
checked
for
truthfulness
and
accuracy
as
the
rules
already
require.”).
3
3.
We
hereby
suspend
ADA
Deborah
Leslie’s
privilege
to
practice
before
the
Supreme
Court
of
Georgia
for
six
months.
As
a
condition
of
the
reinstatement
of
such
privilege,
ADA
Leslie
must
obtain
and
certify
that
sh
e
has
completed
an
aggregate
of
12
hours
of
continuing
legal
education
beyond
the
hours
regularly
required
to
maintain
active
membership
in
the
State
Bar
of
Geor
-
gia,
consisting
of
sessions
on
ethi
cs,
brief
writing,
and
the
proper
3
We
acknowledge
the
Clayton
County
District
Attorney’s
March
27,
2026,
letter
to
this
Court,
in
which
the
District
Attorney
apologized
for
the
post-trial
filings
in
this
case,
stated
th
at
her
office
would
be
“expanding
[its]
internet
and
social
media
use
policies
to
specifically
address
the
use
of
artificial
intelligence,”
and
indicated
that
“strict
disciplinary
action
ha[d]
been
taken
against”
ADA
Leslie.
The
dissent
relies
upon
this
letter
in
support
of
its
posi
-
tion
that
we
should
not
admonish
the
District
Attorney.
First,
we
have
not
admonished
the
District
Attorney
individually
but
rather
admonished
her
of
-
fice,
since
ADA
Leslie
submitted
the
filings
at
issue
on
behalf
of
that
office.
Second,
we
are
puzzled
by
the
dissent’s
reference
to
the
District
Attorney
as
the
“elected
District
Attorney.”
All
district
attorneys
in
Georgia
are
elected,
and
that
status
has
no
bearing
on
their
obligations
to
the
courts
in
which
they
practice
or
our
obligations
when
faced
with
misconduct
arising
out
of
their
of
-
fices.
4
use
of
artificial
intelligence
software
in
the
legal
system.
Upon
expiration
of
the
suspension
and
completion
of
the
imposed
con
-
tinuing
legal
education
requirements,
ADA
Leslie
shall
demon
-
strate
compliance
with
this
order
in
a
petition
for
reinstatement.
Continued
failure
to
ensure
the
accuracy
of
filings
before
this
Court
may
subject
counsel
to
additional
sanctions.
4
4.
Because
the
trial
court’s
September
12,
2025,
order
deny
-
ing
Payne’s
motion
for
new
trial
contains
numerous
fictitious
or
misattributed
case
citati
ons,
we
hereby
vacate
the
trial
court’s
or
-
der
and
remand
the
case
to
the
tr
ial
court
with
instructions
that
it
prepare
and
issue
a
new
order
on
Payne’s
motion
for
new
trial.
The
trial
court’s
order
shall
not
contain
any
fictitious
or
misattributed
case
ci
tations,
and
given
the
unfortunate
circum
-
stances
that
have
led
us
to
this
point,
the
trial
court’s
order
shall
not
be
prepared
by
counsel
for
ei
ther
party.
We
strongly
encour
-
age
trial
courts
to
carefully
revi
ew
proposed
orders
with
the
un
-
derstanding
that
artificial
intelligence
software,
with
all
of
its
po
-
tential
risks
and
benefits,
may
have
been
used
to
prepare
such
proposed
orders.
5.
Payne’s
“Motion
to
Clarify”
filed
on
March
27,
2026,
is
hereby
granted.
This
Court
previously
ordered
counsel
for
the
State
to
produce
all
communication
s
it
had
with
the
trial
court
concerning
the
proposed
order
denying
Payne’s
motion
for
new
trial.
To
the
extent
there
is
a
letter,
email,
or
other
written
com
-
munication
by
or
on
behalf
of
the
Clayton
County
District
Attor
-
ney
to
the
trial
court
concerning
the
proposed
order
(including
an
4
The
sanctions
imposed
by
this
Court
are
case-specific
and
based
on
the
information
and
material
in
the
record.
Nothing
stated
herein
shall
be
con
-
strued
to
affect,
in
any
manner,
any
disciplinary
proceedings
that
may
be
brought
by
the
State
Bar
of
Georgia,
the
Judicial
Qualifications
Commission,
or
any
other
entity.
5
apology
for
the
submission
of
the
proposed
order),
that
communi
-
cation
falls
within
the
scope
of
our
order
and
shall
be
provided
to
this
Court
and
to
counsel
for
Payne
without
delay.
Judgment
vacated
and
case
remanded
with
direction.
All
the
Justices
concur,
except
LaGrua
and
Colvin,
J.J,
who
concur
in
part
and
dissent
in
part.
6
L
A
G
RUA
,
Justice
concurring
in
pa
rt
and
dissenting
in
part.
The
majority
opinion
goes
beyond
what
is
necessary
to
make
the
point
that,
in
this
case
,
the
State’s
lawyer
violated
her
duty
of
candor
to
this
tribunal,
the
Georgia
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct,
see
Rule
3.3,
and
our
Rules.
And
so,
while
I
concur
with
much
of
the
majority
opinion,
I
must
dissent
as
to
the
admonish
-
ment
of
the
elected
Clayton
County
District
Attorney.
In
this
opinion,
the
majority
admonishes
and
sanctions
the
assistant
district
attorney
who
re
presents
the
State
in
this
case,
gives
direction
to
the
presiding
ju
dge
regarding
the
issuance
of
a
new
order,
and
admonishes
the
elected
District
Attorney.
While
I
recognize
that
the
District
Attorney’s
name
appears
on
the
briefs
and
she
ultimately
bears
responsi
bility
for
the
actions
of
those
who
work
for
her,
I
also
understand
that
she
must
be
able
to
trust
and
rely
upon
her
staff
to
do
their
jobs
ethically
and
profession
-
ally.
Every
assistant
district
attorn
ey
takes
an
oath
to
that
effect.
In
this
instance,
the
District
Attorney
sent
a
lengthy
letter
to
this
Court,
copied
to
opposing
counsel,
apologizing
for
the
con
-
duct
of
the
assistant
district
attorney
and
outlining
the
severe
sanctions
imposed
on
that
atto
rney
for
her
actions
in
this
case.
Additionally,
the
District
Attorney
assured
this
Court
that
she
is
immediately
implementing
policies
and
procedures
to
keep
this
from
happening
in
the
future.
We
have
absolutely
no
reason
to
doubt
the
veracity
of
that
lette
r.
And
I
find
such
proactive
dis
-
ciplinary
and
preventati
ve
measures
to
be
more
than
sufficient
under
the
circumstances.
Based
on
the
foregoing,
I
vehemently
decline
to
admonish
the
elected
Clayton
County
District
Attorney
and
respectfully
dis
-
sent
to
that
portion
of
the
majority
opinion.
7
I
am
authorized
to
state
that
Justice
Colvin
joins
in
this
partial
concurrence
and
partial
dissent.
8
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access