Scott v. Chapman (1992)

See OCGA § 9-10-185 (in civil cases, “[w]here counsel in the hearing of the jury make statements of prejudicial matters which are not in evidence, it is the duty of the court to interpose and prevent the same.”); OCGA § 17-8-75 (same 5 To the extent subsequent cases followed Reno for this proposition with respect to evidentiary errors, they have likewise been abrogated, including CSX Transp., Inc. v. Smith, 289 Ga. 903, 907 (2) (717 SE2d 209) (2011); Lewis v. State, 279 Ga. …

Co., 243 F.3d at 258-259 (II); Kossman v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R., 211 F.3d at 1035-1036 (III)(A). [7] Although we have concluded that Smith is entitled to a new trial for the reasons explained in Division 2, infra, this evidentiary issue may recur and, therefore, we address this claim of error here. [8] See Reno v. Reno, 249 Ga. 855, 855-856 (1), 295 S.E.2d 94 (1982) (Where a trial court grants a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence, and the nonmovan…

Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga. App. 58, 59 ( 416 SE2d 111 ) (1992).

"We cannot say that [counsel's] deliberate violation of the trial court's order did not influence the jury's verdict." (Citations omitted.) Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga. App. 58, 59 (1) ( 416 SE2d 111 ) (1992).

Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga. App. 58, 59 (1) ( 416 SE2d 111 ), relying upon Seay v. Urban Med.

“Instances of specific misconduct may not be used to impeach a witness’ character or veracity unless the misconduct has resulted in the conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and the proper method of proving such a conviction is by the introduction of a certified copy thereof.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hall v. State, 180 Ga. App. 881, 884 ( 350 SE2d 801 ) (1986); Brooks v. State, 182 Ga. App. 144, 146 ( 355 SE2d 435 ) (1987). “ ‘[E]xcept as specifically…

Compare Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga. App. 58, 59 (1) ( 416 SE2d 111 ) (1992).