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.
30 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1944–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The jury was already aware that the victim had made audio recordings of her conversations with Madison, “[a]nd a mere verbal inaccuracy in a charge, which results from a palpable ‘slip of the tongue,’ [that] clearly could not have misled or confused the jury is not reversible error.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997). 2014The jury was already aware that the victim had made audio recordings of her conversations with Madison, “[a]nd a mere verbal inaccuracy in a charge, which results from a palpable ‘slip of the tongue,’ [that] clearly could not have misled or confused the jury is not reversible error.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997). | 5 | 7 |
Arthur v. Walkergreen2 sentences2015Because the State’s responsibility was to prove Henry’s guilt, the trial court’s addition of the phrase “or innocence” was an obvious slip of the tongue. “[A] mere verbal inaccuracy in a charge, which results from a palpable ‘slip of the tongue,’ and clearly could not have misled or confused the jury is not reversible error.” Arthur v. Walker, 285 Ga. 578, 579-580 ( 679 SE2d 13 ) (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2015Because the State’s responsibility was to prove Henry’s guilt, the trial court’s addition of the phrase “or innocence” was an obvious slip of the tongue. “[A] mere verbal inaccuracy in a charge, which results from a palpable ‘slip of the tongue,’ and clearly could not have misled or confused the jury is not reversible error.” Arthur v. Walker, 285 Ga. 578, 579-580 ( 679 SE2d 13 ) (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 4 | 4 |
Delacruz v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Delacruz v. State, 280 Ga. 392, 398 ( 627 SE2d 579 ) (2006) (“ ‘A mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.’ ” (citation omitted)). (c) Finally, the trial court gave the wrong aggravated assault instruction when it first instructed the jury, defining aggravated assault as assault with a deadly weapon rather than as assault with intent to murder, the crime for which Lee and Johnson were indicted. 2018See Delacruz v. State, 280 Ga. 392, 398 ( 627 SE2d 579 ) (2006) (“ ‘A mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.’ ” (citation omitted)). (c) Finally, the trial court gave the wrong aggravated assault instruction when it first instructed the jury, defining aggravated assault as assault with a deadly weapon rather than as assault with intent to murder, the crime for which Lee and Johnson were indicted. | 3 | 3 |
Matthews v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Next, Julio claims that the court misstated the burden of proof as to alibi, by charging “if you do not believe from the entire evidence that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you may convict.” (Emphasis supplied.) “A mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.” Matthews v. State, 268 Ga. 798, 805 (7) (c) ( 493 SE2d 136 ) (1997). 2006Next, Julio claims that the court misstated the burden of proof as to alibi, by charging “if you do not believe from the entire evidence that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you may convict.” (Emphasis supplied.) “A mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.” Matthews v. State, 268 Ga. 798, 805 (7) (c) ( 493 SE2d 136 ) (1997). | 3 | 3 |
Davenport v. Stategreen2 sentences2020However, “[a] mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Davenport v. State, 283 Ga. 171, 172 ( 656 SE2d 844 ) (2008). 2020However, “[a] mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Davenport v. State, 283 Ga. 171, 172 ( 656 SE2d 844 ) (2008). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Williams v. State, 303 Ga. App. 222, 230-231 (6) ( 692 SE2d 820 ) (2010) (concluding no harm resulted from denial of mistrial based upon State’s violation of trial court’s evidentiary ruling). 3. 2014See Williams v. State, 303 Ga. App. 222, 230-231 (6) ( 692 SE2d 820 ) (2010) (concluding no harm resulted from denial of mistrial based upon State’s violation of trial court’s evidentiary ruling). 3. | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Generally, “a mere verbal inaccuracy in a charge, which results from a palpable slip of the tongue, and clearly could not have misled or confused the jury is not reversible error.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Brown v. State, 251 Ga. App. 343, 344 (1) ( 554 SE2d 321 ) (2001). 2003Generally, “a mere verbal inaccuracy in a charge, which results from a palpable slip of the tongue, and clearly could not have misled or confused the jury is not reversible error.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Brown v. State, 251 Ga. App. 343, 344 (1) ( 554 SE2d 321 ) (2001). | 2 | 2 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See also Wells v. State, 323 Ga. 415 , 427-28 (2026) (court’s instructions, when taken as a whole, including the written instruction that corrected the misstatement, correctly informed the jury about the contested issue); Walker v. State, 308 Ga. 33, 37 (2020) (“[A] mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.” (quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Siegel v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Siegel v. State, 206 Ga. 252, 254 (2) ( 56 SE2d 512 ) (1949). *224 2. 2009Williams v. State, 267 Ga. 771, 773 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 288 ) (1997); Siegel v. State, 206 Ga. 252, 254 (2) ( 56 SE2d 512 ) (1949). *224 2. | 1 | 1 |
Underwood v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Also, it is axiomatic that jury instructions must be considered as a whole in determining whether an erroneous charge warrants reversal.” (Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Underwood v. State, 283 Ga. App. 638, 640 (2) ( 642 SE2d 324 ) (2007). 2009Also, it is axiomatic that jury instructions must be considered as a whole in determining whether an erroneous charge warrants reversal.” (Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Underwood v. State, 283 Ga. App. 638, 640 (2) ( 642 SE2d 324 ) (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Willingham v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Willingham v. State, 268 Ga. 64, 65 (5) ( 485 SE2d 735 ) (1997). “ ‘Amere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.’ [Cit.]” Delacruz v. State, 280 Ga. 392, 398 (5) ( 627 SE2d 579 ) (2006). 2008See Willingham v. State, 268 Ga. 64, 65 (5) ( 485 SE2d 735 ) (1997). “ ‘Amere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error.’ [Cit.]” Delacruz v. State, 280 Ga. 392, 398 (5) ( 627 SE2d 579 ) (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Wade v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Immediately prior to the instruction of which Davenport complains, the trial court correctly charged the definition of voluntary manslaughter and, immediately afterwards, the trial court instructed the jury that “the burden of proof is upon the State *173 to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense is not so mitigated.” “It is axiomatic that the jury charge is to be read as a whole, and that a single lapsus linguae, preceded and followed by correct instructions, will not vitiate a thorough and otherwise correct instruction.” Wade v. State, 197 Ga. App. 464, 465 (1) ( 398 SE2d 728 ) (19 2008Immediately prior to the instruction of which Davenport complains, the trial court correctly charged the definition of voluntary manslaughter and, immediately afterwards, the trial court instructed the jury that “the burden of proof is upon the State *173 to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense is not so mitigated.” “It is axiomatic that the jury charge is to be read as a whole, and that a single lapsus linguae, preceded and followed by correct instructions, will not vitiate a thorough and otherwise correct instruction.” Wade v. State, 197 Ga. App. 464, 465 (1) ( 398 SE2d 728 ) (19 | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2005“A mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error. [Cit.]” Lee v. State, 267 Ga. App. 834, 837 (2) ( 600 SE2d 825 ) (2004). 2005“A mere verbal inaccuracy resulting from a slip of the tongue which does not clearly mislead or confuse the jury is not reversible error. [Cit.]” Lee v. State, 267 Ga. App. 834, 837 (2) ( 600 SE2d 825 ) (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Fruhling v. Stategreen2 sentences2000The context surrounding the word “is” makes it evident that the word meant was “if.” The jury could not have been confused or misled by this slip of the tongue. “[A] mere verbal inaccuracy in a charge, which results from a palpable slip of the tongue, and clearly could not have misled or confused the jury is not reversible error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fruhling v. State, 233 Ga. App. 544, 545 (5) ( 505 SE2d 47 ) (1998). 2000The context surrounding the word “is” makes it evident that the word meant was “if.” The jury could not have been confused or misled by this slip of the tongue. “[A] mere verbal inaccuracy in a charge, which results from a palpable slip of the tongue, and clearly could not have misled or confused the jury is not reversible error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fruhling v. State, 233 Ga. App. 544, 545 (5) ( 505 SE2d 47 ) (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Harper v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Harper v. State, 155 Ga. App. 764, 765-766 (4) ( 272 SE2d 736 ) (1980). 1999Harper v. State, 155 Ga. App. 764, 765-766 (4) ( 272 SE2d 736 ) (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See Sanders v. State, 181 Ga. App. 117, 121-122 (3) ( 351 SE2d 666 ) (1986). 5. 1993See Sanders v. State, 181 Ga. App. 117, 121-122 (3) ( 351 SE2d 666 ) (1986). 5. | 1 | 1 |
Tiller v. Stategreen2 sentences1984“The Supreme Court and this Court have both held that use of a ‘mug shot’ of the defendant in a lineup and its exhibition to the jury is not reversible error. [Cits.]” Tiller v. State, 159 Ga. App. 557, 559 ( 284 SE2d 63 ) (1981). 1984“The Supreme Court and this Court have both held that use of a ‘mug shot’ of the defendant in a lineup and its exhibition to the jury is not reversible error. [Cits.]” Tiller v. State, 159 Ga. App. 557, 559 ( 284 SE2d 63 ) (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Stategreen2 sentences1984See Owens v. State, 248 Ga. 629, 631-632 ( 284 SE2d 408 ) (1981). 1984See Owens v. State, 248 Ga. 629, 631-632 ( 284 SE2d 408 ) (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Atcheson v. Stategreen2 sentences1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). 1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). | 1 | 1 |
Knight v. Stategreen2 sentences1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). 1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). | 1 | 1 |
Tanner v. Stategreen2 sentences1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). 1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). | 1 | 1 |
Creamer v. Stategreen2 sentences1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). 1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen2 sentences1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). 1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estes v. State
green
2 sentences1993Accordingly, even if we assume that appellant’s line of questioning was proper impeachment despite the fact that the witness did not au *116 thor the report, see Estes v. State, 165 Ga. App. 453 (2) ( 301 SE2d 504 ) (1983), the trial court’s termination of that line of questioning after appellant was able to make its point to the jury is not reversible error. 1993Accordingly, even if we assume that appellant’s line of questioning was proper impeachment despite the fact that the witness did not au *116 thor the report, see Estes v. State, 165 Ga. App. 453 (2) ( 301 SE2d 504 ) (1983), the trial court’s termination of that line of questioning after appellant was able to make its point to the jury is not reversible error. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). 1981Jenkins v. State, 146 Ga. App. 458, 460 ( 246 SE2d 466 ); Accord: Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152, 154 ( 220 SE2d 483 ); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 832 ( 188 SE2d 512 ); Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 704, 708 ( 194 SE2d 73 ); Lee v. State, 237 Ga. 179 (2) ( 227 SE2d 62 ); Knight v. State, 243 Ga. 770, 775 (3) ( 257 SE2d 182 ). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Futch v. State
green
2 sentences1944Futch v. State, 137 Ga. 75 (2 a) (72 S. E. 911); Hartley v. State, supra. In special ground 3, the movant “insists that the court erred during the progress of the charge in giving the following charge to the jury: 'Provocation by words, threats, menaces, or contemptuous gestures shall in no case be sufficient to free the person killing from the guilt and crime of murder.’ Movant insists that this charge was error, because the court did not in this same connection and did not anywhere in the charge call the attention of the jury to the fact that while words, threats, or menaces will not and wit 1944Futch v. State, 137 Ga. 75 (2 a) (72 S. E. 911); Hartley v. State, supra. In special ground 3, the movant “insists that the court erred during the progress of the charge in giving the following charge to the jury: 'Provocation by words, threats, menaces, or contemptuous gestures shall in no case be sufficient to free the person killing from the guilt and crime of murder.’ Movant insists that this charge was error, because the court did not in this same connection and did not anywhere in the charge call the attention of the jury to the fact that while words, threats, or menaces will not and wit | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.