O'NEAL v. State, 677 S.E.2d 90 (Ga. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
O'NEAL v. State, 677 S.E.2d 90 (Ga. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
110 citation events (110 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Kristin Ward (gactapp, 2021-11-08)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Kristin Ward
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lane
Ga. · 2020 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362-363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Nyron Thomas
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Tyler Roderick Crews
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
We review such a question of law de novo and reverse if the trial court committed legal error.” O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted). 5 After Crews’s appeal was remanded, the trial court held two hearings on Crews’s amended motion for new trial , wherein Crews testified that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call his parole officer to testify at trial.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The State v. Enich
Ga. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
We first consider the appropriate standard of review. 3 “[T]he first grant of a new trial on special grounds involving a question of law is reviewable in a proper appeal.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cash
Ga. · 2015 · confidence medium
On review, “ ‘[t]he first grant of a new trial on the general grounds will ordinarily not be disturbed by the appellate court absent an abuse of discretion in that the evidence demanded the verdict rendered.’ ” O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009) *96 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The State v. Reynolds
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Newsome v. State, 324 Ga. App. 665 ( 751 SE2d 474 ) (2013). 2 See OCGA § 5-7-2 (c) (“[T]he granting of a motionfor new trial or an extraordinary motion for new trial shall be considered a final order.”). 3 State v. James, 292 Ga. 440, 441 (1) ( 738 SE2d 601 ) (2013); OCGA § 5-5-50 (“The first grant of a new trial shall not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the appellant shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.”). 4 James, 292 Ga. at 441 (1); accord State v. Kel…
cited Cited as authority (rule) The State v. Shelton
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
We review such a question of law de novo and reverse if the trial court committed legal error. *583 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The State v. Martinez-Palomino
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Clements, 289 Ga. 640 (1) ( 715 SE2d 59 ) (2011) (motion for new trial based on failure to dismiss juror); O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009) (motion for new trial based on prior denial of motion to sever).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The State v. Robertson
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
OCGA § 5-5-50 states: “The first grant of a new trial shall not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the appellant shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.” While the statute may provide the standard of review in both civil and criminal cases, it “is not applicable in all situations where a trial court has entered a first *183 grant of a motion for new trial.” O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362-363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Douglas v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
In this case, “[tjrial counsel’s performance was deficient because [s]he failed to obtain [the victims’] criminal records.” State v. Lamb, 287 Ga. App. 389, 391-392 (1), (2) ( 651 SE2d 504 ) (2007), overruled on other grounds, O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363, n. 4 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jeffery Douglas v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
In this case, “[t]rial counsel’s performance was deficient because [s]he failed to obtain [the victims’] criminal records.” State v. Lamb, 287 Ga. App. 389, 391-392 (1), (2) ( 651 SE2d 504 ) (2007), overruled on other grounds, O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363, n.4 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Wakefield
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
When a trial court grants a new trial “ ‘on special grounds involving a question of law,’ ” O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009), quoting Govt.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Travion M. Willis v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
When a trial court grants a new trial “‘on special grounds involving a question of law,’” O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009), quoting Govt.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Nickerson
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
We review such a question of law de novo and reverse if the trial court committed legal error.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hendrick D. Nickerson
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
We review such a question of law de novo and reverse if the trial court committed legal error.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009). 4 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2 two men argued loudly and cursed at one another.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Laquaine Darryle Chapman
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009) (if a grant of new trial is on special ground involving questions of law, the questions of law are reviewed de novo).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Chapman
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009) (if a grant of new trial is on special ground involving questions of law, the questions of law are reviewed de novo).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Laranda Jones
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“We review the grant of a motion for new trial on special grounds involving a legal question de novo and reverse if the trial court committed legal error.” O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Nicholson
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. James
Ga. · 2013 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362-363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Harris
Ga. · 2012 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362-363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cecil Ray v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ray v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hipp
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009) (motion for new trial based on prior denial of motion to sever); State v. Clements, 289 Ga. 640 (1) ( 715 SE2d 59 ) (2011) (motion for new trial based on failure to dismiss juror).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Green
Ga. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Miller, É J., and McFadden, J., concur. 1 See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009). 2 See OCGA § 42-1-12. 3 OCGA § 16-6-2 (a). 4 270 Ga. 327 ( 510 SE2d 18 ) (1998) (insofar as OCGA § 16-6-2 criminalizes the performance of private, unforced, noncommercial acts of sexual intimacy between persons legally able to consent, the statute infringes upon constitutional guarantees to the right of privacy). 5 See Green v. State, 303 Ga. App. 210, 211 ( 692 SE2d 784 ) (2010). 6 Id. at 211-212 (1). 7 Id. at 213 (1). 8 539 U. S. 558, 562-564, 578 (123 SC 2472, 156 LE2d 508) (2003) (…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gravitt v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
State v. McMillon, 283 Ga. App. 671, 673 (1) ( 642 SE2d 343 ) (2007), overruled in part on other grounds in O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009); Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga. App. 1, 4-6 (3) (a), (b) ( 640 SE2d 599 ) (2006) (witness testimony at motion for new trial hearing established prejudice).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hartley v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Arguing for the contrary result, Hartley relies upon Tenorio v. State, 261 Ga. App. 609, 611-613 (3) ( 583 SE2d 269 ) (2003), and State v. Lamb, 287 Ga. App. 389, 391 (1) ( 651 SE2d 504 ) (2007), overruled in part, O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363, n. 4 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) 12009).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Goff (2×)
Ga. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362-363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Mitchell (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Dantrell Mitchell (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Oliver (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Stanley James Oliver (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
examined Cited "see" Ford Motor Co. v. Conley (4×)
Ga. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009) (holding that we review “special grounds involving a question of law . . . de novo and reverse if the trial court committed legal error” (citation omitted; emphasis added)).
examined Cited "see" State v. Clements (4×)
Ga. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited "see" Cook v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited "see" Burce v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Smith, P. J., and Bernes, J., concur. 1 Smith v. State, 283 Ga. 237, 238 (2) ( 657 SE2d 523 ) (2008) (citation omitted); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). 2 McDougal v. State, 284 Ga. 427, 428 (2) ( 667 SE2d 592 ) (2008). 3 Smith, supra. 4 Strickland, supra at 691 . 5 Jowers v. State, 260 Ga. 459, 462 (2) ( 396 SE2d 891 ) (1990) (citing Strickland, supra). 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 287 Ga. App. 389 ( 651 SE2d 504 ) (2007) (overruled on other grounds by O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009)). 9 Lamb, supra at 391 (2). 10 Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga.…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. James D. Walker (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Tenorio v. State, 261 Ga. App. 609, 612-613 (3) ( 583 SE2d 269 ) (2003); see also State v. Lamb, 6 287 Ga. App. 389, 391-392 (1), (2) ( 651 SE2d 504 ) (2007), overruled on other grounds, O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361 , 363 n.4 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Walker (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Tenorio v. State, 261 Ga. App. 609, 612-613 (3) ( 583 SE2d 269 ) (2003); see also State v. Lamb, 287 Ga. App. 389, 391-392 (1), (2) ( 651 SE2d 504 ) (2007), overruled on other grounds, O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 363, n. 4 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. (2×)
Ga. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361, 362, n. 3 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009); State v. Kachwalla, 274 Ga. 886, 889 ( 561 SE2d 403 ) (2002); State v. Tiraboschi, 269 Ga. 812, 814 ( 504 SE2d 689 ) (1998); Avnet, Inc. v. Wyle Labs., 263 Ga. 615, 619-620 ( 437 SE2d 302 ) (1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Boatright v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Emilio v. State, 263 Ga. App. 604, 605-606 (1) ( 588 SE2d 797 ) (2003) (concluding that trial counsel’s performance was deficient when he introduced evidence that the defendant had been asked to commit a crime and was wanted in five states, since trial counsel failed to inform the jury that the damaging references in the evidence were false or unsubstantiated). 4 In support of his claim, Boatright cites to State v. Lamb, 287 Ga. App. 389, 391-392 (1), (2) ( 651 SE2d 504 ) (2007), overruled on other grounds by O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361 ( 677 SE2d 90 ) (2009).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
O’neal
v.
the State
S08G2011.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 4, 2009.
677 S.E.2d 90
W. Scott Smith, Daniel F. Farnsworth, for appellant., Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, District Attorney, Leonora Grant, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Melton.
Cited by 49 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 50%
Melton, Justice.

In State v. O’Neal, 292 Ga. App. 884 (665 SE2d 926) (2008), the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s first grant of a motion for new trial filed by Frederick O’Neal. [1] We granted certiorari to deter[*362] mine whether the Court of Appeals erred by failing to apply OCGA § 5-5-50 as the proper standard of review when considering the trial court’s first grant of a motion for new trial in a criminal case. [2] For the reasons set forth below, we find that, because the trial court granted the motion for new trial on a special ground instead of the general grounds, OCGA § 5-5-50 is not applicable to this case.

OCGA § 5-5-50 provides:

The first grant of new trial shall not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the appellant shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.

The trial court is given a significant amount of deference for a first grant of new trial because “[t]he decision to grant a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the judge who saw the witnesses and heard the testimony . . . [where the judge] is sometimes spoken of as the thirteenth juror.” (Citations omitted.) Head v. CSX Transp., 271 Ga. 670, 672 (1) (524 SE2d 215) (1999). OCGA § 5-5-50 recognizes this deference to the trial court by requiring that an appellate court employ a standard of review that limits its power to reverse a trial court’s first grant of new trial.

This Court has regularly held that OCGA § 5-5-50 provides the appellate standard of review of the grant of a motion for new trial in civil cases. See, e.g., Head, supra (OCGA § 5-5-50 is the correct standard of review for the Court of Appeals to apply to a Federal Employers’ Liability Act case). By its clear terms, this standard of review must be generally applied to criminal cases as well, a fact that has been previously recognized indirectly by this Court in State v. Jones, 284 Ga. 302 (667 SE2d 76) (2008) (applying OCGA § 5-5-40 in a criminal case). With the higher potential consequences in a criminal action, the application of OCGA § 5-5-50 to criminal cases in addition to civil actions is at least as, if not more, appropriate. [3]

Nonetheless, OCGA § 5-5-50 is not applicable in all situations[*363] where a trial court has entered a first grant of a motion for new trial.

Decided May 4, 2009. W. Scott Smith, Daniel F. Farnsworth, for appellant. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, District Attorney, Leonora Grant, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
The first grant of a new trial on the general grounds will ordinarily not be disturbed by the appellate court absent an abuse of discretion in that the evidence demanded the verdict rendered. See OCGA §§ 5-5-50; 5-5-51, and Dunn v. Gilbert, 217 Ga. 358, 359 (122 SE2d 93) (1961). However, the first grant of a new trial on special grounds involving a question of law is reviewable in a proper appeal. Smith v. Telecable of Columbus, 238 Ga. 559, 560 (234 SE2d 24) (1977). . . . We review such a question of law de novo and reverse if the trial court committed legal error.

(Citation and footnote omitted.) Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 275 Ga. App. 872, 873-874 (622 SE2d 92) (2005). In this case, the motion for new trial was granted on such a special ground, namely that the trial court erred by denying O’Neal’s pretrial motion to sever two different counts of armed robbery committed against two different victims at different times. Therefore, the standard set forth in OCGA § 5-5-50 is not applicable in this case, and the Court of Appeals properly considered the propriety of the trial court’s ruling on the question of law regarding severance of O’Neal’s offenses. [4]

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
1

On September 22, 2000, O’Neal was found guilty by a jury of obstruction for fleeing a police officer, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. Following his conviction, O’Neal filed a motion for new trial contending, among numerous other grounds, that certain of his offenses should have been severed from the others.

2

In his motion for new trial, O’Neal argued that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion to sever two different counts of armed robbery against two different victims at different times. The trial court granted O’Neal’s motion, finding that the only reason for joinder of the two counts of armed robbery was their similarity.

3

The State contends that OCGA § 5-5-50 does not apply to any criminal cases because this standard has existed for over one hundred years and the State did not have the ability to appeal from the grant of a motion for new trial until the 2005 amendment to OCGA § 5-7-1. This argument is not persuasive because, at the time the legislature passed this amendment in 2005, it was presumed to have known the existing law. See, e.g., State v. Tiraboschi, 269 Ga. 812, 814 (504 SE2d 689) (1998) (“[t]he legislature is presumed to know the condition of the law and to enact statutes with reference to it”) (citation omitted). Therefore, the legislature was[*363] aware that OCGA § 5-5-50 applied to motions for new trial generally, and it chose not to exempt criminal trials from this application.

4

To the extent that State v. McMillon, 283 Ga. App. 671 (642 SE2d 343) (2007), and State v. Lamb, 287 Ga. App. 389 (651 SE2d 504) (2007) conflict with this holding, they are hereby overruled.