allegedly erroneous jury instruction in Georgia

2019"In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the plain legal error standard of review." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) White v. State , 291 Ga. App. 249 , 251, 661 S.E.2d 865 (2008).

2019"In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the plain legal error standard of review." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) White v. State , 291 Ga. App. 249 , 251, 661 S.E.2d 865 (2008).

2025We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”26 And in assessing the assertion of an erroneous jury instruction, the instruction “must be evaluated in the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”27 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges is that they were, as given, “correct statements of the law and, as a whole, would not mislead a jury of 26 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); accord Johnson v. State, 323 Ga. App. 65, 68 (2) ( 744 SE2d 921 ) (2013); see Walker v. St

2025We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”26 And in assessing the assertion of an erroneous jury instruction, the instruction “must be evaluated in the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”27 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges is that they were, as given, “correct statements of the law and, as a whole, would not mislead a jury of 26 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); accord Johnson v. State, 323 Ga. App. 65, 68 (2) ( 744 SE2d 921 ) (2013); see Walker v. St

2025We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”26 And in assessing the assertion of an erroneous jury instruction, the instruction “must be evaluated in the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”27 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges is that they were, as given, “correct statements of the law and, as a whole, would not mislead a jury of 26 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); accord Johnson v. State, 323 Ga. App. 65, 68 (2) ( 744 SE2d 921 ) (2013); see Walker v. St

2025We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”26 And in assessing the assertion of an erroneous jury instruction, the instruction “must be evaluated in the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”27 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges is that they were, as given, “correct statements of the law and, as a whole, would not mislead a jury of 26 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); accord Johnson v. State, 323 Ga. App. 65, 68 (2) ( 744 SE2d 921 ) (2013); see Walker v. St

2014Evans argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury that “Count one of the accusation is a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, which provides that it is unlawful for any person to possess, or have under one’s control any quantity of codeine, which is a controlled substance.” 7 “In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the ‘plain legal error’ standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Horton v. Hendrix, 291 Ga. App. 416, 418 (1) ( 662 SE2d 227 ) (2008).

2014Evans argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury that “Count one of the accusation is a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, which provides that it is unlawful for any person to possess, or have under one’s control any quantity of codeine, which is a controlled substance.” 7 “In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the ‘plain legal error’ standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Horton v. Hendrix, 291 Ga. App. 416, 418 (1) ( 662 SE2d 227 ) (2008).

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2025Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 347 Ga. App. 410, 419-20 (3) ( 819 SE2d 696 ) (2018) (noting that a jury charge “must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law” (punctuation omitted)). 29 Wright, 365 Ga. App. at 289 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419, 421 (2) ( 699 SE2d 788 ) (2010). 30 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2) ( 363 SE2d 547 ) (1988) (“When an

2025Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 347 Ga. App. 410, 419-20 (3) ( 819 SE2d 696 ) (2018) (noting that a jury charge “must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law” (punctuation omitted)). 29 Wright, 365 Ga. App. at 289 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419, 421 (2) ( 699 SE2d 788 ) (2010). 30 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2) ( 363 SE2d 547 ) (1988) (“When an

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2025Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 347 Ga. App. 410, 419-20 (3) ( 819 SE2d 696 ) (2018) (noting that a jury charge “must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law” (punctuation omitted)). 29 Wright, 365 Ga. App. at 289 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419, 421 (2) ( 699 SE2d 788 ) (2010). 30 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2) ( 363 SE2d 547 ) (1988) (“When an

2025Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 347 Ga. App. 410, 419-20 (3) ( 819 SE2d 696 ) (2018) (noting that a jury charge “must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law” (punctuation omitted)). 29 Wright, 365 Ga. App. at 289 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419, 421 (2) ( 699 SE2d 788 ) (2010). 30 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2) ( 363 SE2d 547 ) (1988) (“When an

2025Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 347 Ga. App. 410, 419-20 (3) ( 819 SE2d 696 ) (2018) (noting that a jury charge “must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law” (punctuation omitted)). 29 Wright, 365 Ga. App. at 289 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419, 421 (2) ( 699 SE2d 788 ) (2010). 30 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2) ( 363 SE2d 547 ) (1988) (“When an

2025Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 347 Ga. App. 410, 419-20 (3) ( 819 SE2d 696 ) (2018) (noting that a jury charge “must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law” (punctuation omitted)). 29 Wright, 365 Ga. App. at 289 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419, 421 (2) ( 699 SE2d 788 ) (2010). 30 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2) ( 363 SE2d 547 ) (1988) (“When an

2021A jury charge must be considered as a whole and the parts read in conjunction with each other.” Daniels v. State, 310 Ga. App. 562, 565 (2) ( 714 SE2d 91 ) (2011).

2021A jury charge must be considered as a whole and the parts read in conjunction with each other.” Daniels v. State, 310 Ga. App. 562, 565 (2) ( 714 SE2d 91 ) (2011).

2018Moreover, the trial court also charged the jury that they were to consider the court’s instructions “as a whole,” and it gave other specific instructions on the credibility of witnesses, including that the defendant’s credibility “is to be tested by and subject to the same tests as are legally applied to any other witness.” See Smith v. State, 280 Ga. 490, 492 (3) ( 629 SE2d 816 ) (2006) (an allegedly erroneous jury instruction “must be considered in the context of the court’s instruction as a whole”).

2018Moreover, the trial court also charged the jury that they were to consider the court’s instructions “as a whole,” and it gave other specific instructions on the credibility of witnesses, including that the defendant’s credibility “is to be tested by and subject to the same tests as are legally applied to any other witness.” See Smith v. State, 280 Ga. 490, 492 (3) ( 629 SE2d 816 ) (2006) (an allegedly erroneous jury instruction “must be considered in the context of the court’s instruction as a whole”).

2012“In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, this Court applies the plain legal error standard of review.”5 The requested charge stated that I further charge you that standing alone, the mere fact of a person’s having refused an officer’s request to take a chemical test is not in and 3 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle v. State, 303 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 694 SE2d 707 ) (2010). 4 Id. 5 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle, supra at 882 (2). 4 of itself determinative of the issue of whether the person was or was not under the influence alcohol.

2012“In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, this Court applies the plain legal error standard of review.”5 The requested charge stated that I further charge you that standing alone, the mere fact of a person’s having refused an officer’s request to take a chemical test is not in and 3 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle v. State, 303 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 694 SE2d 707 ) (2010). 4 Id. 5 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle, supra at 882 (2). 4 of itself determinative of the issue of whether the person was or was not under the influence alcohol.

2017See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) ; State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 32-33 (2) (a), 718 S.E.2d 232 (2011) ; Reyes v. State , 322 Ga. App. 496 , 501 (4), 745 S.E.2d 738 (2013).

2017See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) ; State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 32-33 (2) (a), 718 S.E.2d 232 (2011) ; Reyes v. State , 322 Ga. App. 496 , 501 (4), 745 S.E.2d 738 (2013).

2017See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) ; State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 32-33 (2) (a), 718 S.E.2d 232 (2011) ; Reyes v. State , 322 Ga. App. 496 , 501 (4), 745 S.E.2d 738 (2013).

2017See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) ; State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29 , 32-33 (2) (a), 718 S.E.2d 232 (2011) ; Reyes v. State , 322 Ga. App. 496 , 501 (4), 745 S.E.2d 738 (2013).

2025Compare Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 319 Ga. 670, 683 (2) ( 906 SE2d 389 ) (2024) (courts conduct a harmless error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested charge); Howland, 324 Ga. App. at 182 (4) (“On appeal, we review allegedly erroneous jury instructions under the plain legal error standard.

2025Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 347 Ga. App. 410, 419-20 (3) ( 819 SE2d 696 ) (2018) (noting that a jury charge “must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law” (punctuation omitted)). 29 Wright, 365 Ga. App. at 289 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419, 421 (2) ( 699 SE2d 788 ) (2010). 30 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2) ( 363 SE2d 547 ) (1988) (“When an

2025Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 347 Ga. App. 410, 419-20 (3) ( 819 SE2d 696 ) (2018) (noting that a jury charge “must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law” (punctuation omitted)). 29 Wright, 365 Ga. App. at 289 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419, 421 (2) ( 699 SE2d 788 ) (2010). 30 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 737 (2) ( 363 SE2d 547 ) (1988) (“When an

2025Compare Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 319 Ga. 670, 683 (2) ( 906 SE2d 389 ) (2024) (courts conduct a harmless error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested charge); Howland, 324 Ga. App. at 182 (4) (“On appeal, we review allegedly erroneous jury instructions under the plain legal error standard.

2024See Bailey v. Edmundson, 280 Ga. 528, 534 (7) ( 630 SE2d 396 ) (2006), superseded by statute on other grounds as acknowledged by Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Walden, 303 Ga. 358 ( 812 SE2d 244 ) (2018) (“There is no requirement that only verbatim pattern charges are permissible.”); Showers v. State, 353 Ga. App. 754 , 760 (2) (b) (ii) ( 839 SE2d 245 ) (2020) (“It is well-established that jury instructions do not need to track, exactly, the language of pattern jury instructions.” (punctuation omitted)).

2024See Bailey v. Edmundson, 280 Ga. 528, 534 (7) ( 630 SE2d 396 ) (2006), superseded by statute on other grounds as acknowledged by Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Walden, 303 Ga. 358 ( 812 SE2d 244 ) (2018) (“There is no requirement that only verbatim pattern charges are permissible.”); Showers v. State, 353 Ga. App. 754 , 760 (2) (b) (ii) ( 839 SE2d 245 ) (2020) (“It is well-established that jury instructions do not need to track, exactly, the language of pattern jury instructions.” (punctuation omitted)).

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2024See Bailey v. Edmundson, 280 Ga. 528, 534 (7) ( 630 SE2d 396 ) (2006), superseded by statute on other grounds as acknowledged by Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Walden, 303 Ga. 358 ( 812 SE2d 244 ) (2018) (“There is no requirement that only verbatim pattern charges are permissible.”); Showers v. State, 353 Ga. App. 754 , 760 (2) (b) (ii) ( 839 SE2d 245 ) (2020) (“It is well-established that jury instructions do not need to track, exactly, the language of pattern jury instructions.” (punctuation omitted)).

2024See Bailey v. Edmundson, 280 Ga. 528, 534 (7) ( 630 SE2d 396 ) (2006), superseded by statute on other grounds as acknowledged by Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Walden, 303 Ga. 358 ( 812 SE2d 244 ) (2018) (“There is no requirement that only verbatim pattern charges are permissible.”); Showers v. State, 353 Ga. App. 754 , 760 (2) (b) (ii) ( 839 SE2d 245 ) (2020) (“It is well-established that jury instructions do not need to track, exactly, the language of pattern jury instructions.” (punctuation omitted)).

2024We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”30 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it SE2d 39) (2017) (holding that a doctor was competent to testify as an expert regarding the standard of care applicable to a doctor in another specialty when the expert had the requisite knowledge and experience under Rule 702 to give expert testimony regarding the acts or omissions of a doctor in another specialty); Cotten v. Phillips, 280 Ga. App. 280, 282-83 ( 633 SE2d 655 ) (2006) (holding that trial court did not abuse discretion

2024We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”30 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it SE2d 39) (2017) (holding that a doctor was competent to testify as an expert regarding the standard of care applicable to a doctor in another specialty when the expert had the requisite knowledge and experience under Rule 702 to give expert testimony regarding the acts or omissions of a doctor in another specialty); Cotten v. Phillips, 280 Ga. App. 280, 282-83 ( 633 SE2d 655 ) (2006) (holding that trial court did not abuse discretion

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2024Again, we disagree. 15 Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) ( 816 SE2d 376 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted); see Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93, 96 ( 726 SE2d 596 ) (2012) (“[A]n assertion of error followed by a case citation is not legal argument, which requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 See supra notes 13-14 & accompanying text. 11 We review de novo an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, which is “a legal question.”17 And in assessing the assertion that a jury instruction was erroneous, it m

2020See Foster v. State, 306 Ga. 587, 590 ( 832 SE2d 346 ) (2019) (explaining that an allegedly erroneous jury instruction must be evaluated “in the context of the instructions as a whole”).

2015See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012); State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32-33 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011); Reyes v. State, 322 Ga. App. 496, 501 (4) ( 745 SE2d 738 ) (2013).

2015See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 614 (5) ( 724 SE2d 377 ) (2012); State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32-33 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011); Reyes v. State, 322 Ga. App. 496, 501 (4) ( 745 SE2d 738 ) (2013).

2012The party asserting error must establish that a legally erroneous charge was given and that it was harmful.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. DTI Logistics, 300 Ga. App. 715, 720 (2) ( 686 SE2d 333 ) (2009).

2012The party asserting error must establish that a legally erroneous charge was given and that it was harmful.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. DTI Logistics, 300 Ga. App. 715, 720 (2) ( 686 SE2d 333 ) (2009).

2012However, a conspiracy may be proven and a jury charge may be given on conspiracy, “even though a defendant is not indicted under that theory.”23 And the specific statutory inclusion of conspiracy as a method of committing the crime of hijacking a motor vehicle does not “alter the general rule that a conspiracy can be proven and charged 22 Johnson v. State, 299 Ga. App. at 711 (2) (punctuation omitted). 23 Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 308, 309 (2) ( 477 SE2d 570 ) (1996). 12 without being indicted.”24 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in charging the jury on the entirety of the motor-vehic

2012However, a conspiracy may be proven and a jury charge may be given on conspiracy, “even though a defendant is not indicted under that theory.”23 And the specific statutory inclusion of conspiracy as a method of committing the crime of hijacking a motor vehicle does not “alter the general rule that a conspiracy can be proven and charged 22 Johnson v. State, 299 Ga. App. at 711 (2) (punctuation omitted). 23 Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 308, 309 (2) ( 477 SE2d 570 ) (1996). 12 without being indicted.”24 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in charging the jury on the entirety of the motor-vehic

2011Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Robinson’s motion for mistrial. (c) Robinson argues that it was error for the trial court to give *748 the State’s requested jury instruction on “deliberate ignorance.” “It is well established that in reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Judice v. State, 308 Ga. App. 229, 232 (3) ( 707 SE2d 114 ) (2011).