Lott v. State (2006)

Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 374 (2) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, 59 (IV) (124 SC 1354, 158 LE2d 177) (2004)).

Indeed, when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, “the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of [his] prior testimonial statements.”13 9 Soto v. State, 285 Ga. 367, 369 (2) (a) ( 677 SE2d 95 ) (2009) (punctuation omitted). 10 See id. (holding that witness’s in-custody statement made during the course of police investigation was testimonial). 11 See id. 12 See id. 13 Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 374 (2) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (quot…

Such objections shall be done outside of the jury’s hearing and presence.”). 4 McCullough v. State, 330 Ga. App. 716, 724 (2) ( 769 SE2d 138 ) (2015) (citations and punctuation omitted). 5 Lott, 281 Ga. App. at 376 (4) (citations and punctuation omitted); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 ( 104 SCt 2052 , 80 LE2d 674) (1984). 5 1.

We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling on such evidence absent an abuse of that discretion.” Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 375 (3) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (citation and punctuation omitted).

We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling on such evidence absent an abuse of that discretion.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 375 (3) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006).

We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling on such evidence absent an abuse of that discretion.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 375 (3) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006).

Having reviewed the entire jury charge, as well as all the rest of the trial transcript, we conclude that there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have differed if the deadly weapon charge about which Shaw complains had been requested and given, and any failure to request this charge, therefore, did not prejudice Shaw, even if his lawyer performed deficiently by failing to request it. 12 See Gear, 288 Ga. at 504 (4); Lewis v. State, 302 Ga. App.…

State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 376 (4) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (because the jury was fairly informed on justification for homicide, there was not “a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result if an instruction on specific forcible felonies had also been given”).

See Sherrell v. State, 274 Ga. 431, 432 (3) ( 554 SE2d 726 ) (2001); Lively, 237 Ga. at 36; Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 374-375 (2) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006). *25 In some instances, the failure to cross-examine may not waive a confrontation clause claim because it is clear from the record that an attempt at cross-examination would have been futile.

J., and Johnson, P. J., concur. 1 See State v. Holler, 224 Ga. App. 66, 68-69 (1) ( 479 SE2d 780 ) (1996) (alco-sensor test results admissible on question of whether suspect tested positive or negative, but inadmissible as evidence of the amount of alcohol or drug in a person’s blood). 2 Compare Sturdy v. State, 192 Ga. App. 71, 72 ( 383 SE2d 632 ) (1989) (where the investigating officer improperly testified to the high level of the results of the alco-sensor test). 3 See Vi…

J., and Phipps, J., concur. 1 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Sampson v. State, 282 Ga. 82, 85 (5) ( 646 SE2d 60 ) (2007). 2 See Smith v. State, 270 Ga. 240, 246 (10) ( 510 SE2d 1 ) (1998). 3 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) McWilliams v. State, 287 Ga. App. 585, 588 ( 651 SE2d 849 ) (2007). 4 (Citations omitted.) Walter v. State, 256 Ga. 666, 668-669 (2) ( 352 SE2d 570 ) (1987). 5 See Albert v. State, 283 Ga. App. 79, 81 ( 640 SE2d 670 ) (2006). 6 See Slade v. State,…

See Berry v. State, 268 Ga. 437, 438 (1) ( 490 SE2d 389 ) (1997); King v. State, 268 Ga. App. 707, 709 ( 603 SE2d 54 ) (2004). 4 See Ibekilo v. State, 277 Ga. App. 384, 386-387 (3) ( 626 SE2d 592 ) (2006); Johnson v. State, 281 Ga. App. 7, 8-9 (1) ( 635 SE2d 278 ) (2006). 5 (Punctuation omitted.) Barrow v. State, 269 Ga. App. 635, 639 (7) ( 605 SE2d 67 ) (2004). 6 Sidwell v. State, 269 Ga. App. 38, 40 (2) ( 603 SE2d 467 ) (2004). 7 See id. 8 (Punctuation omitted.) Orr v. Sta…

See Lott v. State, 281 Ga.App. 373 , 636 S.E.2d 102, 105 (2006) (noting that “the defense of justification is based on a ‘reasonable man’ standard of behavior”).

See infra notes 34-43 & accompanying text. 30 Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 375 (3) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (punctuation omitted); accord Brown v. State, 285 Ga. 772, 774 (2) ( 683 SE2d 581 ) (2009). 31 Lott, 281 Ga. App. at 375 (3) (punctuation omitted); accord Brown, 285 Ga. at 774 (2). 32 See Mitchell v. State, 290 Ga. 490, 492 (4) (a) ( 722 SE2d 705 ) (2012) (holding that a criminal defendant waived an argument when he did not raise it before the trial court); Griffey…

See Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 376 (4) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (no prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to request charge on forcible felonies that might have authorized the defendant’s use of deadly force, because the trial court gave other instructions that informed the jury as to when a homicide is justified); see also Springs v. Seese, 274 Ga. 659, 662 (3) ( 558 SE2d 710 ) (2002) (no reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different ha…

See Lott v. State, 281 Ga. App. 373, 376 (4) ( 636 SE2d 102 ) (2006) (no prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to request charge on forcible felonies that might have authorized the defendant’s use of deadly force, because the trial court gave other instructions that informed the jury as to when a homicide is justified); see also Springs v. Seese, 274 Ga. 659, 662 (3) ( 558 SE2d 710 ) (2002) (no reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different ha…