Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
32 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cheddersingh v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Jones v. State, 303 Ga. 496, 501 (III) ( 813 SE2d 360 ) (2018) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 where the appellant objected to the jury charge but did not “make the specific objection that he now raises on appeal”); Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 682-683 (2) ( 724 SE2d 366 ) (2012) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 to an unpreserved claim regarding the verdict form). 2024See Jones v. State, 303 Ga. 496, 501 (III) ( 813 SE2d 360 ) (2018) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 where the appellant objected to the jury charge but did not “make the specific objection that he now raises on appeal”); Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 682-683 (2) ( 724 SE2d 366 ) (2012) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 to an unpreserved claim regarding the verdict form). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Kellygreen2 sentences2013Thus, this Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court’s instruction constituted “plain error.” See OCGA § 17-8-58. 6 This Court set forth the test for plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) in State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 33 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011). 2013Thus, this Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court’s instruction constituted “plain error.” See OCGA § 17-8-58. 6 This Court set forth the test for plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) in State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 33 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011). | 4 | 4 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Sanders v. State, 290 Ga. 637, 640 (2) ( 723 SE2d 436 ) (2012). 2017Sanders v. State, 290 Ga. 637, 640 (2) ( 723 SE2d 436 ) (2012). | 4 | 4 |
Hampton v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See also, e.g., Hampton v. State, 302 Ga. 166 , 167–68 (2017) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58(b) to forfeited argument about trial court’s answer to jury question). (i) Owens has shown that the trial court’s answer to the jury question was legal error and was not affirmatively waived. 2026See also, e.g., Hampton v. State, 302 Ga. 166 , 167–68 (2017) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58(b) to forfeited argument about trial court’s answer to jury question). (i) Owens has shown that the trial court’s answer to the jury question was legal error and was not affirmatively waived. | 3 | 3 |
Lyman v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312, 317 (2) ( 800 SE2d 333 ) (2017) (in the review of asserted plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b), “whether an error is ‘clear or obvious’ is judged at the time of the appellate court’s review”). 2023See Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312, 317 (2) ( 800 SE2d 333 ) (2017) (in the review of asserted plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b), “whether an error is ‘clear or obvious’ is judged at the time of the appellate court’s review”). | 2 | 2 |
Booth v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“Where, as here, a party fails to object to a jury charge, we review the issue for plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).” Booth v. State, 301 Ga. 678, 680 (2) ( 804 SE2d 104 ) (2017). 2021“Where, as here, a party fails to object to a jury charge, we review the issue for plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).” Booth v. State, 301 Ga. 678, 680 (2) ( 804 SE2d 104 ) (2017). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Brown v. State , 291 Ga. 750 , 754 (4), 733 S.E.2d 300 (2012) (plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 was unavailable to defendant because his trial occurred before July 1, 2007). 2018See Brown v. State , 291 Ga. 750 , 754 (4), 733 S.E.2d 300 (2012) (plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 was unavailable to defendant because his trial occurred before July 1, 2007). | 2 | 2 |
Palmer v. Stategreen2 sentences2017As we have explained on numerous occasions, “questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Palmer v. State, 282 Ga. 466, 468 ( 651 SE2d 86 ) (2007). 8 We note that our Supreme Court has recently held that “when conducting review of asserted plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b), . . . whether an error is ‘clear or obvious’ is judged at the time of the appellate court’s review.” Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312, 317 (2) ( 800 2017As we have explained on numerous occasions, “questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Palmer v. State, 282 Ga. 466, 468 ( 651 SE2d 86 ) (2007). 8 We note that our Supreme Court has recently held that “when conducting review of asserted plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b), . . . whether an error is ‘clear or obvious’ is judged at the time of the appellate court’s review.” Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312, 317 (2) ( 800 | 2 | 2 |
Collier v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Compare Collier v. State, 288 Ga. 756 (4) ( 707 SE2d 102 ) (2011) (assuming without deciding that unobjected-to jury instructions are subject to review for plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b)), with id. at 759-766 (Nahmias, J., concurring specially, opining that plain error review is required whenever jury instruction issue is asserted on appeal). 2011Compare Collier v. State, 288 Ga. 756 (4) ( 707 SE2d 102 ) (2011) (assuming without deciding that unobjected-to jury instructions are subject to review for plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b)), with id. at 759-766 (Nahmias, J., concurring specially, opining that plain error review is required whenever jury instruction issue is asserted on appeal). | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Jones v. State, 303 Ga. 496, 501 (III) ( 813 SE2d 360 ) (2018) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 where the appellant objected to the jury charge but did not “make the specific objection that he now raises on appeal”); Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 682-683 (2) ( 724 SE2d 366 ) (2012) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 to an unpreserved claim regarding the verdict form). 2024See Jones v. State, 303 Ga. 496, 501 (III) (813 SE2d 360) (2018) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 where the appellant objected to the jury charge but did not “make the specific objection that he now raises on appeal”); Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 682-683 (2) (724 SE2d 366) (2012) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 to an unpreserved claim regarding the verdict form). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Jones v. State, 303 Ga. 496, 501 (III) ( 813 SE2d 360 ) (2018) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 where the appellant objected to the jury charge but did not “make the specific objection that he now raises on appeal”); Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 682-683 (2) ( 724 SE2d 366 ) (2012) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 to an unpreserved claim regarding the verdict form). 2024See Jones v. State, 303 Ga. 496, 501 (III) (813 SE2d 360) (2018) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 where the appellant objected to the jury charge but did not “make the specific objection that he now raises on appeal”); Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 682-683 (2) (724 SE2d 366) (2012) (applying plain error review under OCGA § 17-8-58 to an unpreserved claim regarding the verdict form). | 1 | 1 |
McClure v. Stategreen2 sentences2023And current law is clear that “[a] criminal defendant is not required to ‘admit’ anything, in the sense of acknowledging that any particular facts are true, in order to raise an affirmative defense.” McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856, 857 ( 834 SE2d 96 ) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2023And current law is clear that “[a] criminal defendant is not required to ‘admit’ anything, in the sense of acknowledging that any particular facts are true, in order to raise an affirmative defense.” McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856, 857 ( 834 SE2d 96 ) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2021“Under the plain error standard of review, appellate courts assess whether the trial court’s instruction was erroneous, the error was obvious, the instruction likely affected the outcome of the proceedings, and the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Thomas, 350 Ga. App. 763, 765 (1) ( 830 SE2d 296 ) (2019). 2021“Under the plain error standard of review, appellate courts assess whether the trial court’s instruction was erroneous, the error was obvious, the instruction likely affected the outcome of the proceedings, and the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Thomas, 350 Ga. App. 763, 765 (1) ( 830 SE2d 296 ) (2019). | 1 | 1 |
Anthony v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); Booth v. State, 301 Ga. 678, 680 (2) ( 804 SE2d 104 ) (2017) (“[When], as here, a party fails to object to a jury charge, we review the issue for plain error.”). 16 Jones v. State, ___ Ga. App. ___ (1), Slip op. at *11 (Case No. A19A1014; decided October 18, 2019); See Anthony v. State, 303 Ga. 399, 406 (4) n.12 ( 811 SE2d 399 ) (2018) (“Today, in the absence of a timely objection, a judicial comment—other than a comment on the guilt of the acc | 1 | 1 |
ANTHONY v. THE STATE (Three Cases)green1 sentence2020Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); Booth v. State, 301 Ga. 678, 680 (2) ( 804 SE2d 104 ) (2017) (“[When], as here, a party fails to object to a jury charge, we review the issue for plain error.”). 16 Jones v. State, ___ Ga. App. ___ (1), Slip op. at *11 (Case No. A19A1014; decided October 18, 2019); See Anthony v. State, 303 Ga. 399, 406 (4) n.12 ( 811 SE2d 399 ) (2018) (“Today, in the absence of a timely objection, a judicial comment—other than a comment on the guilt of the acc | 1 | 1 |
Stanbury v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Stanbury, 299 Ga. at 129 (2). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Callaham v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Callaham v. State, 317 Ga. App. 513, 515 (1) ( 732 SE2d 88 ) (2012). 2016See Callaham v. State, 317 Ga. App. 513, 515 (1) ( 732 SE2d 88 ) (2012). | 1 | 1 |
McKibbins v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See McKibbins, supra, 293 Ga. at 854 . 2015See McKibbins, supra, 293 Ga. at 854 . | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences2015While Williams might have sought an instruction from the court that clarified that, under the specific facts of this case, the language “admits the doing of the act charged” referred to the act of firing his pistol as the “relevant act that was directly connected to his [affirmative] defense,” Price v. State, 289 Ga. 459, 461 (2) ( 712 SE2d 828 ) (2011), he did not do so. 2015While Williams might have sought an instruction from the court that clarified that, under the specific facts of this case, the language “admits the doing of the act charged” referred to the act of firing his pistol as the “relevant act that was directly connected to his [affirmative] defense,” Price v. State, 289 Ga. 459, 461 (2) ( 712 SE2d 828 ) (2011), he did not do so. | 1 | 1 |
Dukes v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be 2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be | 1 | 1 |
Arrington v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows. 2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows. | 1 | 1 |
Blake v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be 2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be | 1 | 1 |
Corbin v. Stategreen2 sentences2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows. 2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows. | 1 | 1 |
Freeman v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be 2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be 2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Stategreen2 sentences2013However, Kelly “is inapposite as it stands for the proposition that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) mandates plain error review whenever an appealing party properly asserts error in jury instructions, notwithstanding whether an objection was made at trial.” Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883, 885 ( 725 SE2d 305 ) (2012) (emphasis added). 2013However, Kelly “is inapposite as it stands for the proposition that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) mandates plain error review whenever an appealing party properly asserts error in jury instructions, notwithstanding whether an objection was made at trial.” Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883, 885 ( 725 SE2d 305 ) (2012) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Strozier v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be | 1 | 1 |
| Cawthon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Givens v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. State
green
2 sentences2015White v. State, 297 Ga. 218 ( 773 SE2d 219 ) (2015) (holding that the defendant waived plain error analysis where “he requested the pattern charge in question and agreed with the trial court’s ultimate decision to give the charge”). 2015White v. State, 297 Ga. 218 ( 773 SE2d 219 ) (2015) (holding that the defendant waived plain error analysis where “he requested the pattern charge in question and agreed with the trial court’s ultimate decision to give the charge”). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be 2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Pullins v. State
green
2 sentences2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows. 2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.