finding of plain error in Georgia

2021See Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680 (2) (724 SE2d 366) (2012) (explaining that affirmative waiver, as opposed to mere forfeiture by failing to object, 11 prevents a finding of plain error). 4 3.

2021See Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680 (2) (724 SE2d 366) (2012) (explaining that affirmative waiver, as opposed to mere forfeiture by failing to object, 11 prevents a finding of plain error). 4 3.

2019See Blake v. State , 292 Ga. 516 , 517-518 (2), 739 S.E.2d 319 (2013) (finding no error, much less any plain error, where trial court's instruction was an accurate statement of the law); Dukes v. State , 290 Ga. 486 , 489 (5), 722 S.E.2d 701 (2012) (same).

2019See Blake v. State , 292 Ga. 516 , 517-518 (2), 739 S.E.2d 319 (2013) (finding no error, much less any plain error, where trial court's instruction was an accurate statement of the law); Dukes v. State , 290 Ga. 486 , 489 (5), 722 S.E.2d 701 (2012) (same).

2014“A party cannot invite error by requesting a certain jury instruction, and then complain on appeal that the instruction, when given, is incorrect.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bellamy v. State, 312 Ga. App. 899, 901 (1) ( 720 SE2d 323 ) (2011).

2014“A party cannot invite error by requesting a certain jury instruction, and then complain on appeal that the instruction, when given, is incorrect.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bellamy v. State, 312 Ga. App. 899, 901 (1) ( 720 SE2d 323 ) (2011).

2025A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings. 3 Osborne acknowledges that his failure to object below requires review for plain error. 6 Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1, 2 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2025A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings. 3 Osborne acknowledges that his failure to object below requires review for plain error. 6 Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1, 2 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2019See Blake v. State , 292 Ga. 516 , 517-518 (2), 739 S.E.2d 319 (2013) (finding no error, much less any plain error, where trial court's instruction was an accurate statement of the law); Dukes v. State , 290 Ga. 486 , 489 (5), 722 S.E.2d 701 (2012) (same).

2019See Blake v. State , 292 Ga. 516 , 517-518 (2), 739 S.E.2d 319 (2013) (finding no error, much less any plain error, where trial court's instruction was an accurate statement of the law); Dukes v. State , 290 Ga. 486 , 489 (5), 722 S.E.2d 701 (2012) (same).

2019(Citations and footnote omitted.) Nelson v. State , 325 Ga. App. 819 , 820-821, 755 S.E.2d 217 (2014).

2019(Citations and footnote omitted.) Nelson v. State , 325 Ga. App. 819 , 820-821, 755 S.E.2d 217 (2014).

2024In the absence of clear authority supporting his proposition that his right to confront witnesses should be expanded, however, Kirkland’s claim fails because he has failed to show clear error “that is beyond reasonable dispute.” Lupoe, 300 Ga. at 243 (4); see Leonard v. State, 316 Ga. 827, 835 (3) (889 SE2d 837) (2023) (holding that the absence of clear authority to support the proposition advanced by the defendant on appeal prevented the finding of plain error); State v. Herrera-Bustamante, 304 Ga. 259, 266 (2) (b) (818 SE2d 552) (2018) (there was no clear error, and thus no plain error, wher

2024In the absence of clear authority supporting his proposition that his right to confront witnesses should be expanded, however, Kirkland’s claim fails because he has failed to show clear error “that is beyond reasonable dispute.” Lupoe, 300 Ga. at 243 (4); see Leonard v. State, 316 Ga. 827, 835 (3) (889 SE2d 837) (2023) (holding that the absence of clear authority to support the proposition advanced by the defendant on appeal prevented the finding of plain error); State v. Herrera-Bustamante, 304 Ga. 259, 266 (2) (b) (818 SE2d 552) (2018) (there was no clear error, and thus no plain error, wher

2024Lupoe, 300 Ga. at 243 (4); see Leonard v. State, 316 Ga. 827, 835 (3) ( 889 SE2d 837 ) (2023) (holding that the absence of clear authority to support the proposition advanced by the defendant on appeal prevented the finding of plain error); State v. Herrera-Bustamante, 304 Ga. 259, 266 (2) (b) ( 818 SE2d 552 ) (2018) (there was no clear error, and thus no plain error, where defendant argued that evidence was inadmissible on a ground that would have required extension of established precedent). 5.

2024Lupoe, 300 Ga. at 243 (4); see Leonard v. State, 316 Ga. 827, 835 (3) ( 889 SE2d 837 ) (2023) (holding that the absence of clear authority to support the proposition advanced by the defendant on appeal prevented the finding of plain error); State v. Herrera-Bustamante, 304 Ga. 259, 266 (2) (b) ( 818 SE2d 552 ) (2018) (there was no clear error, and thus no plain error, where defendant argued that evidence was inadmissible on a ground that would have required extension of established precedent). 5.

2024In the absence of clear authority supporting his proposition that his right to confront witnesses should be expanded, however, Kirkland’s claim fails because he has failed to show clear error “that is beyond reasonable dispute.” Lupoe, 300 Ga. at 243 (4); see Leonard v. State, 316 Ga. 827, 835 (3) (889 SE2d 837) (2023) (holding that the absence of clear authority to support the proposition advanced by the defendant on appeal prevented the finding of plain error); State v. Herrera-Bustamante, 304 Ga. 259, 266 (2) (b) (818 SE2d 552) (2018) (there was no clear error, and thus no plain error, wher

2020“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. “[P]arties should be advised that the hurdle to establishing plain error is high, . . . and therefore that the failure to specifically articulate how the alleged error satisfies this high standard increases the likelihood that their claims in this regard will be rejected.” State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (1), n. 2 ( 71

2020“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. “[P]arties should be advised that the hurdle to establishing plain error is high, . . . and therefore that the failure to specifically articulate how the alleged error satisfies this high standard increases the likelihood that their claims in this regard will be rejected.” State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (1), n. 2 ( 71

2016Crayton v. State, 298 Ga. 792, 794 (2) ( 784 SE2d 343 ) (2016) (Footnote omitted.) Regarding the cited testimony of the investigator under our plain error review, this Court has previously stated the test for a finding of plain error.

2016Crayton v. State, 298 Ga. 792, 794 (2) ( 784 SE2d 343 ) (2016) (Footnote omitted.) Regarding the cited testimony of the investigator under our plain error review, this Court has previously stated the test for a finding of plain error.

2015S., 273 Ga. App. 576, 577 ( 615 SE2d 627 ) (2005) (holding that officer’s testimony that defendant was traveling faster than the 65 miles per hour speed limit was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction on a speeding violation). 5 of evidence for plain error.10 That being said, a finding of plain error requires “a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.”11 Reviewing Lafavor’s claim in this regard, OCGA § 40-14-17 provides that [

2015S., 273 Ga. App. 576, 577 ( 615 SE2d 627 ) (2005) (holding that officer’s testimony that defendant was traveling faster than the 65 miles per hour speed limit was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction on a speeding violation). 5 of evidence for plain error.10 That being said, a finding of plain error requires “a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.”11 Reviewing Lafavor’s claim in this regard, OCGA § 40-14-17 provides that [

2015See Able, 312 Ga. App. at 258 (2); Hutchins, 326 Ga. App. at 258 (2). 5 The State argues that McCullough affirmatively waived the alleged error because his trial counsel stated at the charge conference that the jury charge at issue was “appropriate” and was a “balanced charge.” See generally Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268, 275 (2) ( 759 SE2d 509 ) (2014) (affirmative waiver prevents a finding of plain error).

2015See Able, 312 Ga. App. at 258 (2); Hutchins, 326 Ga. App. at 258 (2). 5 The State argues that McCullough affirmatively waived the alleged error because his trial counsel stated at the charge conference that the jury charge at issue was “appropriate” and was a “balanced charge.” See generally Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268, 275 (2) ( 759 SE2d 509 ) (2014) (affirmative waiver prevents a finding of plain error).

2015See Able, 312 Ga. App. at 258 (2); Hutchins, 326 Ga. App. at 258 (2). 5 The State argues that McCullough affirmatively waived the alleged error because his trial counsel stated at the charge conference that the jury charge at issue was “appropriate” and was a “balanced charge.” See generally Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268, 275 (2) ( 759 SE2d 509 ) (2014) (affirmative waiver prevents a finding of plain error).

2015See Able, 312 Ga. App. at 258 (2); Hutchins, 326 Ga. App. at 258 (2). 5 The State argues that McCullough affirmatively waived the alleged error because his trial counsel stated at the charge conference that the jury charge at issue was “appropriate” and was a “balanced charge.” See generally Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268, 275 (2) ( 759 SE2d 509 ) (2014) (affirmative waiver prevents a finding of plain error).

2014“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Taylor v. State, 327 Ga. App. 882, 890 (8) ( 761 SE2d 426 ) (2014).

2014“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Taylor v. State, 327 Ga. App. 882, 890 (8) ( 761 SE2d 426 ) (2014).