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.
19 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bradshaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Further, under OCGA § 24-4-403, evidence admissible under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) may still be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by[, among other things,] the danger of unfair prejudice].]” The trial court’s decision to admit OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) evidence is reviewed for a “clear abuse of discretion.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650, 656 (3) ( 769 SE2d 892 ) (2015). 2016Further, under OCGA § 24-4-403, evidence admissible under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) may still be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by[, among other things,] the danger of unfair prejudice].]” The trial court’s decision to admit OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) evidence is reviewed for a “clear abuse of discretion.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650, 656 (3) ( 769 SE2d 892 ) (2015). | 6 | 7 |
Smart v. Stategreen2 sentences2022But in its order admitting Winn’s prior arrest for domestic violence, the juvenile court stated only that it found the evidence relevant to OCGA § 15-11-562 (a) (9), which requires the court—when determining whether to transfer the case—to consider “[t]he sophistication and maturity of such child as determined by consideration of his or her 17 Strong v. State, 309 Ga. 295, 314 (3) n.22 ( 845 SE2d 653 ) (2020). 18 See Smart, 299 Ga. at 417 (2) (explaining admissibility of defendant’s prior acts under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b)). 19 See Ronald L. 2020It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” 3 See Smart v. State, 299 Ga. 414, 417 (2) ( 788 SE2d 442 ) (2016) (“(1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than defendant’s character; (2) the probative value must not be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice; (3) the 3 should have considered the ABA Standards on Joinder before ruling that the other act was admissible, and that he was denied due process regarding his decision n | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2019Appellant contends the trial court erred when it admitted extrinsic act evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) (Rule 404 (b)). 15 *95 Since the enactment of the new Evidence Code, this Court has been called upon in a number of cases to examine the method by which lower courts are to determine the admissibility of evidence offered under Rule 404 (b) of other acts committed by the accused to prove intent. [Cits.] "A trial court's decision to admit other acts evidence will be overturned only where there is a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Jones , 297 Ga. 156 , 159 (1), 773 S.E.2d 170 (201 2019Appellant contends the trial court erred when it admitted extrinsic act evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) (Rule 404 (b)). 15 *95 Since the enactment of the new Evidence Code, this Court has been called upon in a number of cases to examine the method by which lower courts are to determine the admissibility of evidence offered under Rule 404 (b) of other acts committed by the accused to prove intent. [Cits.] "A trial court's decision to admit other acts evidence will be overturned only where there is a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Jones , 297 Ga. 156 , 159 (1), 773 S.E.2d 170 (201 | 1 | 3 |
Olds v. Stategreen2 sentences2021We note that Bentford does not argue that the 2007 incident does not constitute an admissible act under OCGA § 24- 4-413. 3 See Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65, 71-72 (2) ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016) (other acts evidence admissible under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) to establish intent); McAllister, 351 Ga. App. at 84 (1) (c) (addressing admission of other acts under OCGA § 24-4-413). 5 3. 2021We note that Bentford does not argue that the 2007 incident does not constitute an admissible act under OCGA § 24- 4-413. 3 See Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65, 71-72 (2) ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016) (other acts evidence admissible under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) to establish intent); McAllister, 351 Ga. App. at 84 (1) (c) (addressing admission of other acts under OCGA § 24-4-413). 5 3. | 1 | 2 |
Pace v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Because this error could occur on retrial, we address it.40 37 Id. at 26 (2) (a). 38 See Pace v. State, 274 Ga. 69, 71 (5) ( 548 SE2d 307 ) (2001). 2023Because this error could occur on retrial, we address it.40 37 Id. at 26 (2) (a). 38 See Pace v. State, 274 Ga. 69, 71 (5) ( 548 SE2d 307 ) (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Strong v. Stategreen2 sentences2022But in its order admitting Winn’s prior arrest for domestic violence, the juvenile court stated only that it found the evidence relevant to OCGA § 15-11-562 (a) (9), which requires the court—when determining whether to transfer the case—to consider “[t]he sophistication and maturity of such child as determined by consideration of his or her 17 Strong v. State, 309 Ga. 295, 314 (3) n.22 ( 845 SE2d 653 ) (2020). 18 See Smart, 299 Ga. at 417 (2) (explaining admissibility of defendant’s prior acts under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b)). 19 See Ronald L. 2022But in its order admitting Winn’s prior arrest for domestic violence, the juvenile court stated only that it found the evidence relevant to OCGA § 15-11-562 (a) (9), which requires the court—when determining whether to transfer the case—to consider “[t]he sophistication and maturity of such child as determined by consideration of his or her 17 Strong v. State, 309 Ga. 295, 314 (3) n.22 ( 845 SE2d 653 ) (2020). 18 See Smart, 299 Ga. at 417 (2) (explaining admissibility of defendant’s prior acts under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b)). 19 See Ronald L. | 1 | 1 |
McAllister v. Stategreen1 sentence2021We note that Bentford does not argue that the 2007 incident does not constitute an admissible act under OCGA § 24- 4-413. 3 See Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65, 71-72 (2) ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016) (other acts evidence admissible under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) to establish intent); McAllister, 351 Ga. App. at 84 (1) (c) (addressing admission of other acts under OCGA § 24-4-413). 5 3. | 1 | 1 |
Salim Hamlett v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Nevertheless, as we have previously explained, “the admission of other acts under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is not limited to conduct resulting in a conviction.” Hamlett v. State, 350 Ga. App. 93, 100 (2) ( 828 SE2d 132 ) (2019). 2021Nevertheless, as we have previously explained, “the admission of other acts under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is not limited to conduct resulting in a conviction.” Hamlett v. State, 350 Ga. App. 93, 100 (2) ( 828 SE2d 132 ) (2019). | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Such facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. 9 Compare, e.g., Rivers v. State, 296 Ga. 396, 403 ( 768 SE2d 486 ) (2015) (noting that a prior inconsistent statement of a witness who testifies and is subject to cross-examination is admissible both to impeach the witness and as substantive evidence under both the new and old Evidence Codes), with, e.g., B 2016Such facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. 9 Compare, e.g., Rivers v. State, 296 Ga. 396, 403 ( 768 SE2d 486 ) (2015) (noting that a prior inconsistent statement of a witness who testifies and is subject to cross-examination is admissible both to impeach the witness and as substantive evidence under both the new and old Evidence Codes), with, e.g., B | 1 | 1 |
Rivers v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Such facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. 9 Compare, e.g., Rivers v. State, 296 Ga. 396, 403 ( 768 SE2d 486 ) (2015) (noting that a prior inconsistent statement of a witness who testifies and is subject to cross-examination is admissible both to impeach the witness and as substantive evidence under both the new and old Evidence Codes), with, e.g., B 2016Such facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. 9 Compare, e.g., Rivers v. State, 296 Ga. 396, 403 ( 768 SE2d 486 ) (2015) (noting that a prior inconsistent statement of a witness who testifies and is subject to cross-examination is admissible both to impeach the witness and as substantive evidence under both the new and old Evidence Codes), with, e.g., B | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramirez v. State
green
2 sentences2019(The state emphasized that it did not seek admission of the evidence as a prior bad act under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b).) We review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion, Ramirez v. State , 303 Ga. 232 , 235 (II), 811 S.E.2d 416 (2018), and because Rule 404 (a) (1) is materially identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 404 (a) (2) (A), we apply federal case law and Georgia case law decided under our new Evidence Code, rather than Georgia case law decided under our former Evidence Code. 2019(The state emphasized that it did not seek admission of the evidence as a prior bad act under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b).) We review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion, Ramirez v. State , 303 Ga. 232 , 235 (II), 811 S.E.2d 416 (2018), and because Rule 404 (a) (1) is materially identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 404 (a) (2) (A), we apply federal case law and Georgia case law decided under our new Evidence Code, rather than Georgia case law decided under our former Evidence Code. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Almanza
green
2 sentences2019State v. Almanza , 304 Ga. 553 , 556 (2), 820 S.E.2d 1 (2018). 2019State v. Almanza , 304 Ga. 553 , 556 (2), 820 S.E.2d 1 (2018). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Olds v. the State
green
2 sentences2017In Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016) (Olds II), the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the judgment of this Court in Olds v. State, 332 Ga. App. 612 ( 774 SE2d 186 ) (2015) (Olds I), and remanded with direction for this Court to consider the admissibility of the extrinsic acts evidence in light of Olds II. 2017In Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016) (Olds II), the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the judgment of this Court in Olds v. State, 332 Ga. App. 612 ( 774 SE2d 186 ) (2015) (Olds I), and remanded with direction for this Court to consider the admissibility of the extrinsic acts evidence in light of Olds II. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2016Appellant Stewart Brannon was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm in connection with the shooting death of Mario Smith. 1 He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting that the trial court erred in refusing to hold that OCGA § 17-16-4, Georgia’s reciprocal discovery statute, required the State to turn over law enforcement officers’ notes; erred in failing to find that the State withheld exculpatory material from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 ( 83 SCt 1194 , 10 LE2d 215) (1963) and Gi 2016Appellant Stewart Brannon was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm in connection with the shooting death of Mario Smith. 1 He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting that the trial court erred in refusing to hold that OCGA § 17-16-4, Georgia’s reciprocal discovery statute, required the State to turn over law enforcement officers’ notes; erred in failing to find that the State withheld exculpatory material from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 ( 83 SCt 1194 , 10 LE2d 215) (1963) and Gi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Giglio v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Appellant Stewart Brannon was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm in connection with the shooting death of Mario Smith. 1 He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting that the trial court erred in refusing to hold that OCGA § 17-16-4, Georgia’s reciprocal discovery statute, required the State to turn over law enforcement officers’ notes; erred in failing to find that the State withheld exculpatory material from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 ( 83 SCt 1194 , 10 LE2d 215) (1963) and Gi 2016Appellant Stewart Brannon was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm in connection with the shooting death of Mario Smith. 1 He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting that the trial court erred in refusing to hold that OCGA § 17-16-4, Georgia’s reciprocal discovery statute, required the State to turn over law enforcement officers’ notes; erred in failing to find that the State withheld exculpatory material from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 ( 83 SCt 1194 , 10 LE2d 215) (1963) and Gi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.