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.
18 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Booker v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); Weyer v. State, 333 Ga. App. 706, 714 (2) ( 776 SE2d 304 ) (2015) (“[B]ecause [the defendant] did not object to the trial court’s supplemental instructions, we review the instructions only for plain error.”); Booker v. State, 322 Ga. App. 257, 260 (2) ( 744 SE2d 429 ) (2013) (“Because [the defendant] did not object to the jury charge regarding malice murder and felony murder, we review the charge only for plain error.”). 14 Booker, 322 Ga. App. 2021Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); Weyer v. State, 333 Ga. App. 706, 714 (2) ( 776 SE2d 304 ) (2015) (“[B]ecause [the defendant] did not object to the trial court’s supplemental instructions, we review the instructions only for plain error.”); Booker v. State, 322 Ga. App. 257, 260 (2) ( 744 SE2d 429 ) (2013) (“Because [the defendant] did not object to the jury charge regarding malice murder and felony murder, we review the charge only for plain error.”). 14 Booker, 322 Ga. App. | 3 | 3 |
Faust v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“In order for this Court to review the jury charge for plain error, the accused must not have affirmatively waived the alleged error or defect.” Faust v. State, 302 Ga. 211, 215 (2017). 2026“In order for this Court to review the jury charge for plain error, the accused must not have affirmatively waived the alleged error or defect.” Faust v. State, 302 Ga. 211, 215 (2017). | 2 | 3 |
Grullon v. Stategreen2 sentences2026This means that “the appellant’s argument that the trial court deviated from a legal rule must [not] have been intentionally relinquished or abandoned by the appellant.” Grullon, 313 Ga. at 46 (cleaned up). 2026This means that “the appellant’s argument that the trial court deviated from a legal rule must [not] have been intentionally relinquished or abandoned by the appellant.” Grullon, 313 Ga. at 46 (cleaned up). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kellygreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Roundtree, 358 Ga. App. at 145(2) (reviewing a challenge to a jury charge for plain error only the for plain error only because the appellant failed to challenge the charge at issue below). 23 State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (2)(a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (II)(a) ( 29 SCt 1423 , 173 LE2d 266) (2009)). 2026See, e.g., Roundtree, 358 Ga. App. at 145(2) (reviewing a challenge to a jury charge for plain error only the for plain error only because the appellant failed to challenge the charge at issue below). 23 State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (2)(a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (II)(a) ( 29 SCt 1423 , 173 LE2d 266) (2009)). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); Williams v. State, 306 Ga. 717, 720 (2) ( 832 SE2d 805 ) (2019) (“Because an objection voiced at the charge conference does not preserve objections to the charge as subsequently given, the failure to object to the charge as given precludes appellate review unless such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error which affects substantial rights of the parties.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2020See Williams v. State, 306 Ga. 717, 720 (2) ( 832 SE2d 805 ) (2019). | 2 | 2 |
Cheddersingh v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 683 (2) ( 724 SE2d 366 ) (2012). 2017Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 683 (2) ( 724 SE2d 366 ) (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Allen v. State, 290 Ga. 743, 744-745 (3) ( 723 SE2d 684 ) (2012); OCGA § 17-8-58. 2013See Allen v. State, 290 Ga. 743, 744-745 (3) ( 723 SE2d 684 ) (2012); OCGA § 17-8-58. | 2 | 2 |
Puckett v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Roundtree, 358 Ga. App. at 145(2) (reviewing a challenge to a jury charge for plain error only the for plain error only because the appellant failed to challenge the charge at issue below). 23 State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (2)(a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (II)(a) ( 29 SCt 1423 , 173 LE2d 266) (2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Weyer v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); Weyer v. State, 333 Ga. App. 706, 714 (2) ( 776 SE2d 304 ) (2015) (“[B]ecause [the defendant] did not object to the trial court’s supplemental instructions, we review the instructions only for plain error.”); Booker v. State, 322 Ga. App. 257, 260 (2) ( 744 SE2d 429 ) (2013) (“Because [the defendant] did not object to the jury charge regarding malice murder and felony murder, we review the charge only for plain error.”). 14 Booker, 322 Ga. App. 2021Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); Weyer v. State, 333 Ga. App. 706, 714 (2) ( 776 SE2d 304 ) (2015) (“[B]ecause [the defendant] did not object to the trial court’s supplemental instructions, we review the instructions only for plain error.”); Booker v. State, 322 Ga. App. 257, 260 (2) ( 744 SE2d 429 ) (2013) (“Because [the defendant] did not object to the jury charge regarding malice murder and felony murder, we review the charge only for plain error.”). 14 Booker, 322 Ga. App. | 1 | 1 |
Durham v. Stategreen2 sentences2016In reviewing a jury charge for plain error, “we must determine whether there is an error that has not been affirmatively waived, is clear and obvious, affects the defendant’s substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Durham v. State, 292 Ga. 239, 241 (3) ( 734 SE2d 377 ) (2012). 2016In reviewing a jury charge for plain error, “we must determine whether there is an error that has not been affirmatively waived, is clear and obvious, affects the defendant’s substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Durham v. State, 292 Ga. 239, 241 (3) ( 734 SE2d 377 ) (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Martin v. State, 303 Ga. App. 117, 120 (3), n. 1 ( 692 SE2d 741 ) (2010). 2011See Martin v. State, 303 Ga. App. 117, 120 (3), n. 1 ( 692 SE2d 741 ) (2010). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2018In reviewing a jury charge for plain error, "the proper inquiry is whether the instruction was erroneous, whether it was obviously so, and whether it likely affected the outcome of the proceedings." (Punctuation and citation omitted.) Id. 2018In reviewing a jury charge for plain error, “the proper inquiry is whether the instruction was erroneous, whether it was obviously so, and whether it likely affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
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.