enumerated error in Georgia

2025Byrd v. State, 321 Ga. 222, 225 (2) ( 913 SE2d 667 ) (2025) (emphasis supplied).

2025See Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 22 (“Any enumerated error or subpart of an enumerated error not supported by argument, citations to authority, and citations to the record shall be deemed abandoned.”); Byrd v. State, 321 Ga. 222, 225 (2025) (“[L]itigants must do more than just make an argument or cite au- thority, but must now ensure that argument, citation to authority, and citation to the record are all present to avoid having an enumer- ation deemed abandoned.”).

2021See Davenport v. State, 309 Ga. 385, 399 (4) (b) (846 SE2d 83) (2020). 4 The trial court charged the jury as follows: Now, in this case statements that [Volkova] allegedly made were offered to you for your consideration.

2021See Davenport v. State, 309 Ga. 385, 399 (4) (b) (846 SE2d 83) (2020). 4 The trial court charged the jury as follows: Now, in this case statements that [Volkova] allegedly made were offered to you for your consideration.

2021See, e.g., Leonard v. State, 325 Ga. App. 577 , 577 n.1 ( 754 SE2d 155 ) (2014) (holding that appellant’s attempt to expand the scope of his arguments with additional argument for reversal in reply brief was an assertion of an argument “beyond the scope of the enumerated error and will not be considered by this Court”); 7 and may instruct juries to no longer consider them—which is the very purpose of the requirement that objections be made before the jury returns a verdict.10 And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that jurors follow the instructions of the trial court.11 Th

2016See Leonard v. State, 325 Ga. App. 577 , 577 n.1 ( 754 SE2d 155 ) (2014) (holding that appellant’s attempt to expand the scope of his arguments with additional argument for reversal in reply brief was an assertion of an argument “beyond the scope of the enumerated error and will not be considered by this Court”); Perez v. Atlanta Check Cashers, Inc., 302 Ga. App. 864 , 867 n.3 ( 692 SE2d 670 ) (2010) (“[A] party may not use his reply brief to expand his enumeration of errors by arguing the incorrectness of a trial court’s ruling not mentioned in the enumeration.” (punctuation omitted)).

2021See, e.g., Leonard v. State, 325 Ga. App. 577 , 577 n.1 ( 754 SE2d 155 ) (2014) (holding that appellant’s attempt to expand the scope of his arguments with additional argument for reversal in reply brief was an assertion of an argument “beyond the scope of the enumerated error and will not be considered by this Court”); 7 and may instruct juries to no longer consider them—which is the very purpose of the requirement that objections be made before the jury returns a verdict.10 And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that jurors follow the instructions of the trial court.11 Th

2016See Leonard v. State, 325 Ga. App. 577 , 577 n.1 ( 754 SE2d 155 ) (2014) (holding that appellant’s attempt to expand the scope of his arguments with additional argument for reversal in reply brief was an assertion of an argument “beyond the scope of the enumerated error and will not be considered by this Court”); Perez v. Atlanta Check Cashers, Inc., 302 Ga. App. 864 , 867 n.3 ( 692 SE2d 670 ) (2010) (“[A] party may not use his reply brief to expand his enumeration of errors by arguing the incorrectness of a trial court’s ruling not mentioned in the enumeration.” (punctuation omitted)).

1992Although we are not required to consider arguments which are beyond the scope of the enumerated error (MacDonald v. MacDonald, 156 Ga. App. 565 (1) (a) ( 275 SE2d 142 ) (1980)), this court is nevertheless indulgent in examining all arguments raised by a criminal defendant acting pro se.

1992Although we are not required to consider arguments which are beyond the scope of the enumerated error (MacDonald v. MacDonald, 156 Ga. App. 565 (1) (a) ( 275 SE2d 142 ) (1980)), this court is nevertheless indulgent in examining all arguments raised by a criminal defendant acting pro se.

2024Once an affirmative defense is raised, the burden is on the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.” 18 court responded that Williams would, nonetheless, be able to argue self-defense in closing arguments, specifically referencing that Williams had testified that Swinson “threw her down twice” and “wouldn’t leave” prior to the shooting. 8 “[T]o authorize a requested jury instruction, there need only be slight evidence supporting the theory of the charge.” Wainwright v. State, 305 Ga. 63, 70 (5) ( 823 SE2d 749 ) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2024Once an affirmative defense is raised, the burden is on the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.” 18 court responded that Williams would, nonetheless, be able to argue self-defense in closing arguments, specifically referencing that Williams had testified that Swinson “threw her down twice” and “wouldn’t leave” prior to the shooting. 8 “[T]o authorize a requested jury instruction, there need only be slight evidence supporting the theory of the charge.” Wainwright v. State, 305 Ga. 63, 70 (5) ( 823 SE2d 749 ) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2016Indeed, even if we were to reach the merits of the Appellants’ enumerated claim(s) of error and agree that the trial judge should have referred the recusal motions for reassignment to a new judge, issuing an opinion to that effect – i.e., vacating the judgments and remanding the cases for such reassignments – “would be, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion on a moot 5 Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 ( 339 SE2d 241 ) (1986) (citation omitted); see Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 ( 719 SE2d 430 ) (2011) (“An appeal is dismissed when ‘the questions presented have become moot

2016Indeed, even if we were to reach the merits of the Appellants’ enumerated claim(s) of error and agree that the trial judge should have referred the recusal motions for reassignment to a new judge, issuing an opinion to that effect – i.e., vacating the judgments and remanding the cases for such reassignments – “would be, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion on a moot 5 Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 ( 339 SE2d 241 ) (1986) (citation omitted); see Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 ( 719 SE2d 430 ) (2011) (“An appeal is dismissed when ‘the questions presented have become moot

2016Indeed, even if we were to reach the merits of the Appellants’ enumerated claim(s) of error and agree that the trial judge should have referred the recusal motions for reassignment to a new judge, issuing an opinion to that effect – i.e., vacating the judgments and remanding the cases for such reassignments – “would be, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion on a moot 5 Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 ( 339 SE2d 241 ) (1986) (citation omitted); see Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 ( 719 SE2d 430 ) (2011) (“An appeal is dismissed when ‘the questions presented have become moot

2016Indeed, even if we were to reach the merits of the Appellants’ enumerated claim(s) of error and agree that the trial judge should have referred the recusal motions for reassignment to a new judge, issuing an opinion to that effect – i.e., vacating the judgments and remanding the cases for such reassignments – “would be, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion on a moot 5 Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 ( 339 SE2d 241 ) (1986) (citation omitted); see Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 ( 719 SE2d 430 ) (2011) (“An appeal is dismissed when ‘the questions presented have become moot

2016Indeed, even if we were to reach the merits of the Appellants’ enumerated claim(s) of error and agree that the trial judge should have referred the recusal motions for reassignment to a new judge, issuing an opinion to that effect – i.e., vacating the judgments and remanding the cases for such reassignments – “would be, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion on a moot 5 Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 ( 339 SE2d 241 ) (1986) (citation omitted); see Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 ( 719 SE2d 430 ) (2011) (“An appeal is dismissed when ‘the questions presented have become moot

2016Indeed, even if we were to reach the merits of the Appellants’ enumerated claim(s) of error and agree that the trial judge should have referred the recusal motions for reassignment to a new judge, issuing an opinion to that effect – i.e., vacating the judgments and remanding the cases for such reassignments – “would be, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion on a moot 5 Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 ( 339 SE2d 241 ) (1986) (citation omitted); see Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 ( 719 SE2d 430 ) (2011) (“An appeal is dismissed when ‘the questions presented have become moot

2016Indeed, even if we were to reach the merits of the Appellants’ enumerated claim(s) of error and agree that the trial judge should have referred the recusal motions for reassignment to a new judge, issuing an opinion to that effect – i.e., vacating the judgments and remanding the cases for such reassignments – “would be, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion on a moot 5 Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 ( 339 SE2d 241 ) (1986) (citation omitted); see Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 ( 719 SE2d 430 ) (2011) (“An appeal is dismissed when ‘the questions presented have become moot

2016Indeed, even if we were to reach the merits of the Appellants’ enumerated claim(s) of error and agree that the trial judge should have referred the recusal motions for reassignment to a new judge, issuing an opinion to that effect – i.e., vacating the judgments and remanding the cases for such reassignments – “would be, in essence, rendering an advisory opinion on a moot 5 Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 433 ( 339 SE2d 241 ) (1986) (citation omitted); see Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 ( 719 SE2d 430 ) (2011) (“An appeal is dismissed when ‘the questions presented have become moot

2016Thus, “this argument falls outside the enumerated error and will not be considered.” Kohlhaas v. State, 284 Ga. App. 79, 85 (3), n. 4 ( 643 SE2d 350 ) (2007).

2016Thus, “this argument falls outside the enumerated error and will not be considered.” Kohlhaas v. State, 284 Ga. App. 79, 85 (3), n. 4 ( 643 SE2d 350 ) (2007).

2014Accordingly, this enumeration of error is waived. [Cits.]” Ashford v. State, 271 Ga. 148, 149 (2) ( 518 SE2d 420 ) (1999).

2014Accordingly, this enumeration of error is waived. [Cits.]” Ashford v. State, 271 Ga. 148, 149 (2) ( 518 SE2d 420 ) (1999).

2014See also Biederbeck v. Marbut, 294 Ga. App. 799, 800-801 (2) ( 670 SE2d 483 ) (2008) (“appellate courts have ‘a statutory duty to discern what errors an appellant is attempting to articulate’ based on ‘the notice of appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination of the foregoing’ ”), quoting Felix, 294 Ga. at 538; Strickland v. State, 165 Ga. App. 197, 199 (2) ( 300 SE2d 537 ) (1983) (even where an appeal is not “as artfully drawn as might be desired,” this Court has a “duty to consider what it perceives to be the substance of the enumerations”). 8 That statute provides: “(g

2014See also Biederbeck v. Marbut, 294 Ga. App. 799, 800-801 (2) ( 670 SE2d 483 ) (2008) (“appellate courts have ‘a statutory duty to discern what errors an appellant is attempting to articulate’ based on ‘the notice of appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination of the foregoing’ ”), quoting Felix, 294 Ga. at 538; Strickland v. State, 165 Ga. App. 197, 199 (2) ( 300 SE2d 537 ) (1983) (even where an appeal is not “as artfully drawn as might be desired,” this Court has a “duty to consider what it perceives to be the substance of the enumerations”). 8 That statute provides: “(g

2014See Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534, 539 ( 523 SE2d 1 ) (1999) (noting that an error is by definition a specific ruling of the trial court and holding that an appellate court is obligated to address all legal arguments made in support of an enumerated error, even if each specific legal argument was not set forth as a separate enumeration).

2014See Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534, 539 ( 523 SE2d 1 ) (1999) (noting that an error is by definition a specific ruling of the trial court and holding that an appellate court is obligated to address all legal arguments made in support of an enumerated error, even if each specific legal argument was not set forth as a separate enumeration).

2014See also Biederbeck v. Marbut, 294 Ga. App. 799, 800-801 (2) ( 670 SE2d 483 ) (2008) (“appellate courts have ‘a statutory duty to discern what errors an appellant is attempting to articulate’ based on ‘the notice of appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination of the foregoing’ ”), quoting Felix, 294 Ga. at 538; Strickland v. State, 165 Ga. App. 197, 199 (2) ( 300 SE2d 537 ) (1983) (even where an appeal is not “as artfully drawn as might be desired,” this Court has a “duty to consider what it perceives to be the substance of the enumerations”). 8 That statute provides: “(g

2014See also Biederbeck v. Marbut, 294 Ga. App. 799, 800-801 (2) ( 670 SE2d 483 ) (2008) (“appellate courts have ‘a statutory duty to discern what errors an appellant is attempting to articulate’ based on ‘the notice of appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination of the foregoing’ ”), quoting Felix, 294 Ga. at 538; Strickland v. State, 165 Ga. App. 197, 199 (2) ( 300 SE2d 537 ) (1983) (even where an appeal is not “as artfully drawn as might be desired,” this Court has a “duty to consider what it perceives to be the substance of the enumerations”). 8 That statute provides: “(g

2014See Corsini v. State, 238 Ga. App. 383, 386, n. 1 ( 519 SE2d 39 ) (1999).

2014See Corsini v. State, 238 Ga. App. 383, 386, n. 1 ( 519 SE2d 39 ) (1999).

1989If the object be to reach defects or imperfections in particular parts, they must be pointed out.’ [Cits.]” McTyre v. King, 215 Ga. 417, 421 (5) ( 110 SE2d 651 ) (1959).

1989If the object be to reach defects or imperfections in particular parts, they must be pointed out.’ [Cits.]” McTyre v. King, 215 Ga. 417, 421 (5) ( 110 SE2d 651 ) (1959).

1981The enumerated error deals solely with the finding of competency at trial and that is the only issue we will address as “ * [a]n enumeration of error cannot be enlarged to include other issues not made therein.’ ” Hurston v. Georgia Farm Bureau, 148 Ga. App. 324, 326 (2) ( 250 SE2d 886 ).

1981The enumerated error deals solely with the finding of competency at trial and that is the only issue we will address as “ * [a]n enumeration of error cannot be enlarged to include other issues not made therein.’ ” Hurston v. Georgia Farm Bureau, 148 Ga. App. 324, 326 (2) ( 250 SE2d 886 ).

1993A mere recital, or repetition, of the enumerated error is not argument.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Chesser v. Wallace, *3 200 Ga. App. 567 -568 ( 408 SE2d 814 ).

1993A mere recital, or repetition, of the enumerated error is not argument.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Chesser v. Wallace, *3 200 Ga. App. 567 -568 ( 408 SE2d 814 ).

1978Cochran v. Baxter, 142 Ga. App. 546, 547 ( 236 SE2d 528 ). 2.

1978Cochran v. Baxter, 142 Ga. App. 546, 547 ( 236 SE2d 528 ). 2.

1966Enumerated error 8 alleges that it was error for the court to charge that a divorce granted the plaintiff “would auto *463 matically be granting a divorce to the defendant, and would remove the disabilities of each party insofar as the right to remarry is concerned.” “It is reversible error to charge a jury in a divorce case that, if the jury grants one party a divorce as a matter of law, the opposite party should also be granted a divorce.” Perlotte v. Perlotte, 218 Ga. 27 ( 126 SE2d 220 ).

1966Enumerated error 8 alleges that it was error for the court to charge that a divorce granted the plaintiff “would auto *463 matically be granting a divorce to the defendant, and would remove the disabilities of each party insofar as the right to remarry is concerned.” “It is reversible error to charge a jury in a divorce case that, if the jury grants one party a divorce as a matter of law, the opposite party should also be granted a divorce.” Perlotte v. Perlotte, 218 Ga. 27 ( 126 SE2d 220 ).