McCray v. State (2017)

See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 244 (1) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017) (“Direct evidence is that which is consistent with either the proposed conclusion or its opposite; circumstantial evidence is that which is consistent with both the proposed conclusion and its opposite.”) (citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted).

McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 246 (2) (c) (799 SE2d 206) (2017) (citation omitted).

“In the appeal of a non-capital case, the defendant’s failure to object to the State’s closing argument waives his right to rely on the alleged impropriety of that argument as a basis for reversal.” McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 250 (799 SE2d 206) (2017).

McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 247-248 (3) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017).

We find no error in the trial court’s decision to exclude this proffered testimony See, e.g., Grell, supra. See also McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 249 (6) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017) (“This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit or refuse to admit evidence for abuse of discretion”); Thompson v. State, 277 Ga. App. 323, 324 (2) ( 626 SE2d 825 ) (2006) (“Atrial court’s ruling on a motion in limine is reviewed for abuse of discretion”) (citation omitted). 3.

See, e.g., Grell, supra. See also McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 249 (6) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) 6 (2017) (“This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit or refuse to admit evidence for abuse of discretion”); Thompson v. State, 277 Ga. App. 323, 324 (2) ( 626 SE2d 825 ) (2006) (“A trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine is reviewed for abuse of discretion”) (citation omitted). 3.

Where “conflicting evidence was presented regarding whether a defendant acted in self-defense in shooting the victim, the jury is free to reject the evidence in support of self-defense and to accept the evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense.” McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 243 (1) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017).

To prevail on a Brady claim, Cain must establish the following four factors: (1) The State, including any part of the prosecution team, possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the favorable evidence and could not obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; (3) the State suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed…

“This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit or refuse to admit evidence for abuse of discretion.” McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 249 (6) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017).

See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 243 (1) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017) (where a defendant effectively raises an affirmative defense of justification or self-defense, the State has the burden of disproving that defense beyond a reasonable doubt); Mosby v. State, 300 Ga. 450, 451 (1) ( 796 SE2d 277 ) (2017) (same).

See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 246 (2) (c) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017).

See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 246 (2) (c) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017).

See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 246 (2) (c) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017).

See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 244 (1) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017) (“Direct evidence is that which is consistent with either the proposed conclusion or its opposite; circumstantial evidence is that which is consistent with both the proposed conclusion and its opposite.” (citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted)).

See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 249 ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017).

Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 258 Ga. 232, 232 ( 367 SE2d 539 ) (1988) (“Circumstantial evidence can be described as evidence which does not constitute direct proof with regard to the issue of fact or the hypothesis sought to be 12 several feet high” stood in place of the well in 2015, it is equally possible that (a) planters deviated from a straight line at the well’s location in 2010 because the ground at that time similarly rose—or appeared to do so due to structures associated w…

See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 249 ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017).

See id.