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.
20 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2020Jackson’s imminent use of unlawful force” we must accept them.19 Thus, “[c]onstrued in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to [the charge of aggravated assault against Jackson], the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendant] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.”20 disputed because based on “the trial court[‘]s ruling] against [the defendant], we . . . must infer that the trial court found [another witness’s] testimony more credible than [the defendant’s] . . . [a 2020Jackson’s imminent use of unlawful force” we must accept them.19 Thus, “[c]onstrued in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to [the charge of aggravated assault against Jackson], the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendant] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.”20 disputed because based on “the trial court[‘]s ruling] against [the defendant], we . . . must infer that the trial court found [another witness’s] testimony more credible than [the defendant’s] . . . [a | 5 | 5 |
Anthony v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bunngreen2 sentences2020Jackson’s imminent use of unlawful force” we must accept them.19 Thus, “[c]onstrued in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to [the charge of aggravated assault against Jackson], the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendant] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.”20 disputed because based on “the trial court[‘]s ruling] against [the defendant], we . . . must infer that the trial court found [another witness’s] testimony more credible than [the defendant’s] . . . [a 2020Jackson’s imminent use of unlawful force” we must accept them.19 Thus, “[c]onstrued in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to [the charge of aggravated assault against Jackson], the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendant] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.”20 disputed because based on “the trial court[‘]s ruling] against [the defendant], we . . . must infer that the trial court found [another witness’s] testimony more credible than [the defendant’s] . . . [a | 2 | 3 |
Bunn v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Calmer filed a pretrial motion for immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2, which provides that a defendant is immune from criminal prosecution if he used justifiable force to protect himself or his home.7 To avoid trial based on a justification defense presented at an immunity hearing, “a defendant bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 by a preponderance of the evidence.” Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 413 (3) ( 667 SE2d 605 ) (2008). 2020Calmer filed a pretrial motion for immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2, which provides that a defendant is immune from criminal prosecution if he used justifiable force to protect himself or his home.7 To avoid trial based on a justification defense presented at an immunity hearing, “a defendant bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 by a preponderance of the evidence.” Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 413 (3) ( 667 SE2d 605 ) (2008). | 2 | 3 |
Fair v. Stategreen2 sentences2018From an order, decision, or judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment, accusation, or a petition alleging that a child has committed a delinquent act, or any count thereof[.]"). 5 284 Ga. 165 , 664 S.E.2d 227 (2008). 6 Id. at 166 (1), 664 S.E.2d 227 (citing and discussing with approval the construction and application of OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in Boggs v. State , 261 Ga. App. 104 , 106, 581 S.E.2d 722 (2003) ). 7 Id. ("Because we are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals correctly construed and applied OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in Boggs , we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to rule pr 2018From an order, decision, or judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment, accusation, or a petition alleging that a child has committed a delinquent act, or any count thereof[.]"). 5 284 Ga. 165 , 664 S.E.2d 227 (2008). 6 Id. at 166 (1), 664 S.E.2d 227 (citing and discussing with approval the construction and application of OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in Boggs v. State , 261 Ga. App. 104 , 106, 581 S.E.2d 722 (2003) ). 7 Id. ("Because we are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals correctly construed and applied OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in Boggs , we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to rule pr | 2 | 3 |
State v. COPELAND (Three Cases)green2 sentences2024See Copeland v. State, 310 Ga. 345, 349 (2) ( 850 SE2d 736 ) (2020). 2023“Law enforcement officers may seek immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 when they are indicted based on their threats or use of force” and “their evidentiary burden is identical to that of any other defendant.” Copeland, 310 Ga. at 350 (2) (a). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences2020Jackson’s imminent use of unlawful force” we must accept them.19 Thus, “[c]onstrued in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to [the charge of aggravated assault against Jackson], the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendant] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.”20 disputed because based on “the trial court[‘]s ruling] against [the defendant], we . . . must infer that the trial court found [another witness’s] testimony more credible than [the defendant’s] . . . [a 2020Jackson’s imminent use of unlawful force” we must accept them.19 Thus, “[c]onstrued in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to [the charge of aggravated assault against Jackson], the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendant] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.”20 disputed because based on “the trial court[‘]s ruling] against [the defendant], we . . . must infer that the trial court found [another witness’s] testimony more credible than [the defendant’s] . . . [a | 2 | 2 |
Blackwell v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See id. at 826 , 809 S.E.2d 727 . (c) Lastly, Goodson alleges that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to seek pretrial immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2. 2019See id. at 826 , 809 S.E.2d 727 . (c) Lastly, Goodson alleges that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to seek pretrial immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Coopergreen2 sentences2016Construed in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to injuries inflicted upon Robinson, “the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [Jennings] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Green, 289 Ga. 802, 804 (1) ( 716 SE2d 194 ) (2011); see State v. Cooper, 324 Ga. App. 32, 34-36 (1) ( 749 SE2d 35 ) (2013) (evidence could be construed in a manner to support trial court’s conclusion that defendants’ actions were justified). 2016Construed in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to injuries inflicted upon Robinson, “the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [Jennings] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Green, 289 Ga. 802, 804 (1) ( 716 SE2d 194 ) (2011); see State v. Cooper, 324 Ga. App. 32, 34-36 (1) ( 749 SE2d 35 ) (2013) (evidence could be construed in a manner to support trial court’s conclusion that defendants’ actions were justified). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Yapogreen2 sentences2013See also State v. Yapo, 296 Ga. App. 158, 160 (2) ( 674 SE2d 44 ) (2009) (where testimony provided some evidence that defendant’s actions were justified under OCGA § 16-3-21 (a) and state chose to present no contrary testimony, trial court properly held that defendant was immune from prosecution for those actions). 2. 2013See also State v. Yapo, 296 Ga. App. 158, 160 (2) ( 674 SE2d 44 ) (2009) (where testimony provided some evidence that defendant’s actions were justified under OCGA § 16-3-21 (a) and state chose to present no contrary testimony, trial court properly held that defendant was immune from prosecution for those actions). 2. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Craig Lynn Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2023Jenkins, 355 Ga. App. at 45. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Remygreen2 sentences2021In his brief on appeal, Pope argues that because he “had to testify at trial if he had any hope of acquittal on self-defense grounds,” 3 “Prior to 2014, a felon in possession of a firearm generally could not assert a claim for immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 for crimes involving the use of deadly force.” State v. Remy, 308 Ga. 296, 296 ( 840 SE2d 385 ) (2020). 2021In his brief on appeal, Pope argues that because he “had to testify at trial if he had any hope of acquittal on self-defense grounds,” 3 “Prior to 2014, a felon in possession of a firearm generally could not assert a claim for immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 for crimes involving the use of deadly force.” State v. Remy, 308 Ga. 296, 296 ( 840 SE2d 385 ) (2020). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burksgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Burks, 285 Ga. 781, 782 ( 684 SE2d 269 ) (2009) (holding that the former version of OCGA § 16-3-24.2 did not apply if the defendant was unlawfully carrying a firearm). 2020See State v. Burks, 285 Ga. 781, 782 ( 684 SE2d 269 ) (2009) (holding that the former version of OCGA § 16-3-24.2 did not apply if the defendant was unlawfully carrying a firearm). | 1 | 1 |
Blazer v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Jackson’s imminent use of unlawful force” we must accept them.19 Thus, “[c]onstrued in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to [the charge of aggravated assault against Jackson], the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendant] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.”20 disputed because based on “the trial court[‘]s ruling] against [the defendant], we . . . must infer that the trial court found [another witness’s] testimony more credible than [the defendant’s] . . . [a 2020Jackson’s imminent use of unlawful force” we must accept them.19 Thus, “[c]onstrued in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, with respect to [the charge of aggravated assault against Jackson], the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendant] met his burden of proving that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 16-3-24.2.”20 disputed because based on “the trial court[‘]s ruling] against [the defendant], we . . . must infer that the trial court found [another witness’s] testimony more credible than [the defendant’s] . . . [a | 1 | 1 |
Boggs v. Stategreen2 sentences2018From an order, decision, or judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment, accusation, or a petition alleging that a child has committed a delinquent act, or any count thereof[.]"). 5 284 Ga. 165 , 664 S.E.2d 227 (2008). 6 Id. at 166 (1), 664 S.E.2d 227 (citing and discussing with approval the construction and application of OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in Boggs v. State , 261 Ga. App. 104 , 106, 581 S.E.2d 722 (2003) ). 7 Id. ("Because we are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals correctly construed and applied OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in Boggs , we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to rule pr 2018From an order, decision, or judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment, accusation, or a petition alleging that a child has committed a delinquent act, or any count thereof[.]"). 5 284 Ga. 165 , 664 S.E.2d 227 (2008). 6 Id. at 166 (1), 664 S.E.2d 227 (citing and discussing with approval the construction and application of OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in Boggs v. State , 261 Ga. App. 104 , 106, 581 S.E.2d 722 (2003) ). 7 Id. ("Because we are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals correctly construed and applied OCGA § 16-3-24.2 in Boggs , we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to rule pr | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ogunsuyigreen2 sentences2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2020“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (a) Mathis first argues that his counsel performed deficiently by not filing a pretrial motion for immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2.3 We disagree. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Myers v. State
green
2 sentences2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Nicholson
green
2 sentences2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Payne v. State
green
2 sentences2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 2018Further, as the statute provides that such person 'shall be immune from criminal prosecution,' the decision as to whether a person is immune under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 must be determined by the trial court before the trial of that person commences." (punctuation omitted) ). 8 See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ("Nothing in this Code section shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court."). 9 State v. Nicholson , 321 Ga. App. 314 , 317 (1), 739 S.E.2d 145 (2013) (quoting State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 3 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.