inapplicable instruction in Georgia

1989“Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case.” General GMC Trucks v. Crockett, 145 Ga. App. 503 (3) ( 244 SE2d 78 ).

1989“Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case.” General GMC Trucks v. Crockett, 145 Ga. App. 503 (3) ( 244 SE2d 78 ).

1992The charge to the jury included all of the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (as did Count 1 of the accusation), although some of them were not applicable. [1] Anderson was convicted of Counts 1 and 2, *27 and sentenced under Count 1. (a) Our appellate courts often have held: "It is not usually cause for new trial that an entire Code section is given ... even though a part of the charge may be inapplicable under the facts in evidence." [Cits.] [ Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624, 628 ( 331 SE2d 516 ) (1985).] [2] (b) However, the Court of Appeals also has held: Where the inapplicable instruction au

1992The charge to the jury included all of the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (as did Count 1 of the accusation), although some of them were not applicable. [1] Anderson was convicted of Counts 1 and 2, *27 and sentenced under Count 1. (a) Our appellate courts often have held: "It is not usually cause for new trial that an entire Code section is given ... even though a part of the charge may be inapplicable under the facts in evidence." [Cits.] [ Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624, 628 ( 331 SE2d 516 ) (1985).] [2] (b) However, the Court of Appeals also has held: Where the inapplicable instruction au

2013See generally Rojas v. State, 280 Ga. 139, 140-141 (4) ( 625 SE2d 750 ) (2006); Sherrod v. State, 157 Ga. App. 351, 352 (3) ( 277 SE2d 335 ) (1981) (“Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2013See generally Rojas v. State, 280 Ga. 139, 140-141 (4) ( 625 SE2d 750 ) (2006); Sherrod v. State, 157 Ga. App. 351, 352 (3) ( 277 SE2d 335 ) (1981) (“Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2024See, e.g., Robinson v. Boyd, 288 Ga. 53, 55-56 (2) ( 701 SE2d 165 ) (2010) (holding that untimely service of process is an inapplicable defense in a renewal action where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his original action and timely served defendants in his renewal action); Hobbs, 264 Ga. at 361 (concluding that the renewal statute applied in two consolidated cases where plaintiffs effected service after the expiration of the statute of limitation but voluntarily dismissed their original actions prior to the original courts ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgmen

2024See, e.g., Robinson v. Boyd, 288 Ga. 53, 55-56 (2) ( 701 SE2d 165 ) (2010) (holding that untimely service of process is an inapplicable defense in a renewal action where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his original action and timely served defendants in his renewal action); Hobbs, 264 Ga. at 361 (concluding that the renewal statute applied in two consolidated cases where plaintiffs effected service after the expiration of the statute of limitation but voluntarily dismissed their original actions prior to the original courts ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgmen

2015See Miller, supra. Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

2015See Miller, supra. Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

2013See generally Rojas v. State, 280 Ga. 139, 140-141 (4) ( 625 SE2d 750 ) (2006); Sherrod v. State, 157 Ga. App. 351, 352 (3) ( 277 SE2d 335 ) (1981) (“Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2013See generally Rojas v. State, 280 Ga. 139, 140-141 (4) ( 625 SE2d 750 ) (2006); Sherrod v. State, 157 Ga. App. 351, 352 (3) ( 277 SE2d 335 ) (1981) (“Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

1998Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hopkins v. First Union Bank, etc., 193 Ga.App. 109, 112 , 387 S.E.2d 144 (1989).

1998Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hopkins v. First Union Bank, etc., 193 Ga.App. 109, 112 , 387 S.E.2d 144 (1989).

1993(Cit.)’ [Cit.]” Joiner v. State, 163 Ga. App. 521, 523 (5) ( 295 SE2d 219 ).

1993(Cit.)’ [Cit.]” Joiner v. State, 163 Ga. App. 521, 523 (5) ( 295 SE2d 219 ).

2024See, e.g., Robinson v. Boyd, 288 Ga. 53, 55-56 (2) ( 701 SE2d 165 ) (2010) (holding that untimely service of process is an inapplicable defense in a renewal action where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his original action and timely served defendants in his renewal action); Hobbs, 264 Ga. at 361 (concluding that the renewal statute applied in two consolidated cases where plaintiffs effected service after the expiration of the statute of limitation but voluntarily dismissed their original actions prior to the original courts ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgmen

2010As noted above, in Hobbs we held that “inasmuch as diligence in perfecting service of process in an action properly refiled under OCGA § 9-2-61 (a) must be measured from the time of filing the renewed suit, any delay in service in a valid first action is not available as an affirmative defense in the renewal action.” 264 Ga. at 360-361 .

2020Appellant’s argument that the inapplicable instruction was prejudicial is premised on Crosby v. State, 150 Ga. App. 555 ( 258 SE2d 264 ) (1979), where the Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible error when it instructed the jury on corroboration by a second accomplice even though only one accomplice testified.

2020Appellant’s argument that the inapplicable instruction was prejudicial is premised on Crosby v. State, 150 Ga. App. 555 ( 258 SE2d 264 ) (1979), where the Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible error when it instructed the jury on corroboration by a second accomplice even though only one accomplice testified.

1995(Stanley v. State, 153 Ga. App. 42, 47 ( 264 SE2d 533 ) (1980).)” Anderson v. State, 262 Ga. 26 (1), 27 (1b) ( 413 SE2d 732 ).

1995(Stanley v. State, 153 Ga. App. 42, 47 ( 264 SE2d 533 ) (1980).)” Anderson v. State, 262 Ga. 26 (1), 27 (1b) ( 413 SE2d 732 ).

2024See, e.g., Robinson v. Boyd, 288 Ga. 53, 55-56 (2) ( 701 SE2d 165 ) (2010) (holding that untimely service of process is an inapplicable defense in a renewal action where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his original action and timely served defendants in his renewal action); Hobbs, 264 Ga. at 361 (concluding that the renewal statute applied in two consolidated cases where plaintiffs effected service after the expiration of the statute of limitation but voluntarily dismissed their original actions prior to the original courts ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgmen

2024See, e.g., Robinson v. Boyd, 288 Ga. 53, 55-56 (2) ( 701 SE2d 165 ) (2010) (holding that untimely service of process is an inapplicable defense in a renewal action where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his original action and timely served defendants in his renewal action); Hobbs, 264 Ga. at 361 (concluding that the renewal statute applied in two consolidated cases where plaintiffs effected service after the expiration of the statute of limitation but voluntarily dismissed their original actions prior to the original courts ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgmen

2020That holding was summarized this way: “The inapplicable instruction in the instant case authorized the jury to reach a finding of guilty by a theory not supported by the evidence, and we can not Foster v. State, 304 Ga. 624 , 627 n.5 ( 820 SE2d 723 ) (2018) (declining to address “whether the hearsay statements of witnesses at trial who are testifying about the matters allegedly told to them by an accomplice must be corroborated in the same manner as the actual testimony of an accomplice pursuant to OCGA § 24- 14-8”); Lawrence v. State, 342 Ga. App. 396, 403 ( 802 SE2d 859 ) (2017) (holding tha

2020That holding was summarized this way: “The inapplicable instruction in the instant case authorized the jury to reach a finding of guilty by a theory not supported by the evidence, and we can not Foster v. State, 304 Ga. 624 , 627 n.5 ( 820 SE2d 723 ) (2018) (declining to address “whether the hearsay statements of witnesses at trial who are testifying about the matters allegedly told to them by an accomplice must be corroborated in the same manner as the actual testimony of an accomplice pursuant to OCGA § 24- 14-8”); Lawrence v. State, 342 Ga. App. 396, 403 ( 802 SE2d 859 ) (2017) (holding tha

2013J., and Branch, J., concur. 9 Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 566 (3) ( 722 SE2d 765 ) (2012) (citations and punctuation omitted). 10 See generally Rojas v. State, 280 Ga. 139, 140-141 (4) ( 625 SE2d 750 ) (2006); Sherrod v. State, 157 Ga. App. 351, 352 (3) ( 277 SE2d 335 ) (1981) (“Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 9

2013J., and Branch, J., concur. 9 Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 566 (3) ( 722 SE2d 765 ) (2012) (citations and punctuation omitted). 10 See generally Rojas v. State, 280 Ga. 139, 140-141 (4) ( 625 SE2d 750 ) (2006); Sherrod v. State, 157 Ga. App. 351, 352 (3) ( 277 SE2d 335 ) (1981) (“Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 9

2012(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Strobhert v. State, 241 Ga. App. 354, 356 (1) ( 526 SE2d 863 ) (1999).

2012(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Strobhert v. State, 241 Ga. App. 354, 356 (1) ( 526 SE2d 863 ) (1999).

2008"This Court will not decide constitutional issues if the case can be decided on other grounds. [Cit.]" Patel v. State, 282 Ga. 412, fn. 1 , 651 S.E.2d 55 (2007).

2008"This Court will not decide constitutional issues if the case can be decided on other grounds. [Cit.]" Patel v. State, 282 Ga. 412, fn. 1 , 651 S.E.2d 55 (2007).

2007(Citations omitted.) Harden v. Drost, 156 Ga. App. 363, 365 (2) ( 274 SE2d 748 ) (1980).

2007(Citations omitted.) Harden v. Drost, 156 Ga. App. 363, 365 (2) ( 274 SE2d 748 ) (1980).

1999(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hightower v. State, 210 Ga. App. 386, 388 ( 436 SE2d 28 ) (1993).

1999(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hightower v. State, 210 Ga. App. 386, 388 ( 436 SE2d 28 ) (1993).

1994Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Lehman v. Zuckerman, 198 Ga. App. 202, 206 (7) ( 400 SE2d 704 ) (1990).

1994Harmful error results when an inapplicable instruction might reasonably draw the jury away from the true issues in dispute or if the erroneous instruction is inapplicable to a vital issue in the case." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Lehman v. Zuckerman, 198 Ga. App. 202, 206 (7) ( 400 SE2d 704 ) (1990).

1992The charge to the jury included all of the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (as did Count 1 of the accusation), although some of them were not applicable. [1] Anderson was convicted of Counts 1 and 2, *27 and sentenced under Count 1. (a) Our appellate courts often have held: "It is not usually cause for new trial that an entire Code section is given ... even though a part of the charge may be inapplicable under the facts in evidence." [Cits.] [ Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624, 628 ( 331 SE2d 516 ) (1985).] [2] (b) However, the Court of Appeals also has held: Where the inapplicable instruction au

1992The charge to the jury included all of the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (as did Count 1 of the accusation), although some of them were not applicable. [1] Anderson was convicted of Counts 1 and 2, *27 and sentenced under Count 1. (a) Our appellate courts often have held: "It is not usually cause for new trial that an entire Code section is given ... even though a part of the charge may be inapplicable under the facts in evidence." [Cits.] [ Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624, 628 ( 331 SE2d 516 ) (1985).] [2] (b) However, the Court of Appeals also has held: Where the inapplicable instruction au

1991See generally Benson v. State, 164 Ga. App. 19 (2) ( 295 SE2d 579 ) (1982).

1991See generally Benson v. State, 164 Ga. App. 19 (2) ( 295 SE2d 579 ) (1982).

1990See Vitner v. Funk, 182 Ga. App. 39 (2) ( 354 SE2d 666 ) (1987). “ ‘When an error in the charge of the court is shown to exist, it is presumed to be prejudicial and harmful, and this court will so hold unless it appears from the entire record that the error is harmless.’ [Cit.] As a fair risk exists that the charge directly misled the jury as to the [issue of justifiable reliance which is an element of the burden of proof for fraud in the context of a confidential relationship] and as the jury found in favor of the [appellee], ‘it cannot be said that the error was rendered harmless by the jury

1990See Vitner v. Funk, 182 Ga. App. 39 (2) ( 354 SE2d 666 ) (1987). “ ‘When an error in the charge of the court is shown to exist, it is presumed to be prejudicial and harmful, and this court will so hold unless it appears from the entire record that the error is harmless.’ [Cit.] As a fair risk exists that the charge directly misled the jury as to the [issue of justifiable reliance which is an element of the burden of proof for fraud in the context of a confidential relationship] and as the jury found in favor of the [appellee], ‘it cannot be said that the error was rendered harmless by the jury

1988Garner v. State, 174 Ga. App. 628, 630 (4) ( 330 SE2d 750 ) (1985).” Durham v. State, 181 Ga. App. 155, 157 (4), 158 ( 351 SE2d 683 ).

1988Garner v. State, 174 Ga. App. 628, 630 (4) ( 330 SE2d 750 ) (1985).” Durham v. State, 181 Ga. App. 155, 157 (4), 158 ( 351 SE2d 683 ).

1988Garner v. State, 174 Ga. App. 628, 630 (4) ( 330 SE2d 750 ) (1985).” Durham v. State, 181 Ga. App. 155, 157 (4), 158 ( 351 SE2d 683 ).

1988Garner v. State, 174 Ga. App. 628, 630 (4) ( 330 SE2d 750 ) (1985).” Durham v. State, 181 Ga. App. 155, 157 (4), 158 ( 351 SE2d 683 ).