Payne v. State

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, 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.
                                             The State

                          On Appeal from the Superior Court of Clayton County
                                          No. 2019CR0173714

                              Argued: March 18, 2026 - Decided: May 5, 2026


                     LAND, 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 cases that do not stand for the prop-
             osition asserted in the brief. In an order largely prepared by ADA
             Leslie, the trial court denied Payne’s motion for new trial. That
             order contained citations to non-existent 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 Payne’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 trial court denying Payne’s motion
for new trial (which reflects that ADA Leslie prepared that order)
came to include nine case citations 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 new trial and the trial court’s pro-
posed order denying the motion for new trial. ADA Leslie
acknowledged that the case citations 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 software, 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 Georgia 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 State’s briefing before this Court.
These filings, as well as the trial court’s order, contain multiple
case citations which 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 responsible use of artificial intelligence
software by attorneys, citing cases 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 beneath the conduct we expect from
Georgia lawyers. See Supreme Court 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 citations, 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 substantial 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 she 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 ethics, 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 that 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 citations, we hereby vacate the trial court’s or-
der and remand the case to the trial 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 citations, 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 either party. We strongly encour-
age trial courts to carefully review 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 communications 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
      LAGRUA, Justice concurring in part 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 represents the State in this case,
gives direction to the presiding judge 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 responsibility 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 attorney 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 attorney 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 letter. And I find such proactive dis-
ciplinary and preventative 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