Anderson v. State (2016)

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016) (defendant’s claims about sufficiency of evidence were moot for crimes that were vacated by operation of law or that merged with murder).

See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 5 State v. James, 292 Ga. 440, 441 (1) ( 738 SE2d 601 ) (2013); see 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.”). 6 James, 292 Ga. at 441 (1); accord …

See, e.g., Gebhardt v. State, 307 Ga. 587, 591 (2) ( 837 SE2d 318 ) (2019) (noting, in parenthetical, that “a defendant is not ‘convicted’ on counts that are vacated . . ., and challenges to the sufficiency of evidence to support those non-existent convictions are moot”); Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1), n. 4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016).

Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1), n. 4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016). 3.

See also Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193 , 196 n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016) (explaining that a defendant is not “convicted” on counts that are vacated or that merge with other offenses for sentencing purposes, and challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support those non-existent convictions are moot). 8 which he was convicted.” Moulder v. State, 317 Ga. 43, 46-47 ( 891 SE2d 903 ) (2023).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016). 2 hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” OCGA § 24-14-6.

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 (787 SE2d 202) (2016); OCGA § 16-1-3 (4).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016) (a defendant is not “convicted” on counts that are vacated or that merge with other offenses for sentencing purposes, and challenges to the sufficiency of evidence to support those non-existent convictions are moot).

Examining the relevant case authority, the Supreme Court of Georgia has held that “when a proper charge on a criminal defendant’s election not to testify is timely requested by the defendant, it is error for the trial judge to fail to give it.”17 And such an error “requires a new trial.”18 Similarly, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a state trial judge has “‘the constitutional obligation, upon proper request, to minimize the danger that the jury will give…

This Court has questioned whether simple battery can ever be a lesser-included-offense to child molestation as a matter of law.46 And of course, an 44 State v. Crist, 341 Ga. App. 411, 415 ( 801 SE2d 545 ) (2017); see Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (2) ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016) (“To show plain error, [the defendant] must establish not only that the jury instruction was erroneous, but also that it was obviously so and that it likely affected the outcome of the proceedings.…

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016) (defendant’s claims about sufficiency of evidence were moot for crimes that were vacated or that mergedr). 12 favorable to the verdicts and consider whether any rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted.” Kirkland v. State, __ Ga. __, __ (8), 2024 WL 674830 , at *13 (Case No. S23A0942, decided Feb. 20, 2024).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016) (defendant’s claims about sufficiency of evidence were moot for crimes that were vacated or that merged). 12 the crimes of which he was convicted.” Kirkland v. State, 318 Ga. 639, 659 (8) ( 898 SE2d 536 ) (2024).

Indeed, under OCGA § 17-8-58, “[a]ny party who objects to any portion of the charge to the jury or the failure to charge the jury shall inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for such objection before the jury retires to deliberate.”3 The failure to do so precludes appellate review of such portion of the jury charge, unless “such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error which affects the substantial rights of the parties.”4 In such cases, the pr…

Under OCGA § 17-8-58, “[a]ny party who objects to any portion of the charge to the jury or the failure to charge the jury shall inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for such objection before the jury retires to deliberate.”34 The failure to so object precludes “appellate review of such portion of the jury charge, unless such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error which affects the substantial rights of the parties.”35 In such cases, as the S…

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016) (a defendant is not “convicted” on counts that are vacated or that merge with other offenses for sentencing purposes, and challenges to the sufficiency of evidence to support those non-existent convictions are moot).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016) (a defendant is not “convicted” on counts that are vacated or that merge with other offenses for sentencing purposes, and challenges to the sufficiency of evidence to support those non-existent convictions are moot).

See Anderson v. State , 299 Ga. 193 , 196 (1) n.4, 787 S.E.2d 202 (2016).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016). v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

See id.; see also Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193 , 196 n.4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016).

See id. ; see also Anderson v. State , 299 Ga. 193 , 196 n.4, 787 S.E.2d 202 (2016).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1), n. 4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016); Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. 339, 340, n. 2 ( 781 SE2d 777 ) (2016). 5 character generally was “irrelevant and, thus, inadmissible.

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1), n. 4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016); Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. 339, 340, n. 2 ( 781 SE2d 777 ) (2016).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n. 4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016); Mills v. State, 287 Ga. 828, 830 (2) ( 700 SE2d 544 ) (2010).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193, 196 (1) n. 4 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016); Mills v. State, 287 Ga. 828, 830 (2) ( 700 SE2d 544 ) (2010).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193 ( 787 SE2d 202 ) (2016).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193 , 196 n.4 (2016) (concluding that, where a count is vacated for sentencing purposes, the defendant is not convicted on that count, and a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support that count is moot). 10 and, thus, was sufficient to support the appellant’s burglary conviction where it showed that, once he and the other appellants were inside the victim’s home, they robbed and shot the victim).

See Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193 (787 3 Two jailhouse informants also provided testimony concerning Camp’s murder.