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.
13 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2012 0 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 sentences2000“The general rule is that retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” Id. 1997"The general rule is that retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency. [Cits.]" Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 311 (1), 369 S.E.2d 232 (1988). | 4 | 5 |
Nance v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Nance v. State, 274 Ga. 311, 311 ( 553 SE2d 794 ) (2001) (“The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred [when] reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” (punctuation omitted)). 2012See Nance v. State, 274 Ga. 311, 311 ( 553 SE2d 794 ) (2001) (“The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred [when] reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” (punctuation omitted)). | 2 | 4 |
Burks v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1, 9-10 (98 SC 2141, 57 LE2d 1) (1978). “ The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.’ ” Nance v. State, 274 Ga. 311 ( 553 SE2d 794 ) (2001). 1989Reversal based upon a faulty or flawed indictment is a reversal based upon “trial error.” Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1, 13-14 (98 SC 2141, 57 LE2d 1) (1978). | 2 | 3 |
Boggs v. Stategreen2 sentences2012McMullen failed to see the truck in front 1 See Nance v. State, 274 Ga. 311, 311 ( 553 SE2d 794 ) (2001) (“The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred [when] reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” (punctuation omitted)). 2 See Boggs v. State, 304 Ga. App. 698, 698 (1) ( 697 SE2d 843 ) (2010); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2 of her and collided with the rear of the trailer. 2012McMullen failed to see the truck in front 1 See Nance v. State, 274 Ga. 311, 311 ( 553 SE2d 794 ) (2001) (“The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred [when] reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” (punctuation omitted)). 2 See Boggs v. State, 304 Ga. App. 698, 698 (1) ( 697 SE2d 843 ) (2010); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2 of her and collided with the rear of the trailer. | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2012McMullen failed to see the truck in front 1 See Nance v. State, 274 Ga. 311, 311 ( 553 SE2d 794 ) (2001) (“The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred [when] reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” (punctuation omitted)). 2 See Boggs v. State, 304 Ga. App. 698, 698 (1) ( 697 SE2d 843 ) (2010); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2 of her and collided with the rear of the trailer. 2012McMullen failed to see the truck in front 1 See Nance v. State, 274 Ga. 311, 311 ( 553 SE2d 794 ) (2001) (“The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred [when] reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” (punctuation omitted)). 2 See Boggs v. State, 304 Ga. App. 698, 698 (1) ( 697 SE2d 843 ) (2010); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2 of her and collided with the rear of the trailer. | 2 | 2 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Jenkins v. State, 259 Ga. App. 47, 49 (2) ( 576 SE2d 300 ) (2002) (“The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.”) (punctuation omitted). 6. 2009See Jenkins v. State, 259 Ga. App. 47, 49 (2) ( 576 SE2d 300 ) (2002) (“The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.”) (punctuation omitted). 6. | 1 | 1 |
Langlands v. Stategreen2 sentences2008A defendant who procures the setting aside of a judgment against him generally may be tried anew upon another indictment, for the same offense of which he had been convicted. *214 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Langlands v. State, 282 Ga. 103, 105 (2) ( 646 SE2d 253 ) (2007). 2008A defendant who procures the setting aside of a judgment against him generally may be tried anew upon another indictment, for the same offense of which he had been convicted. *214 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Langlands v. State, 282 Ga. 103, 105 (2) ( 646 SE2d 253 ) (2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. D'AURIAgreen2 sentences1997State v. D’Auria, 222 Ga. App. 615, 616 ( 475 SE2d 678 ) (1996). 1997State v. D’Auria, 222 Ga. App. 615, 616 ( 475 SE2d 678 ) (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Benford v. Stategreen2 sentences1996“It has been recognized in many cases that the primary purpose underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause is to prohibit the retrial of a criminal defendant where the prosecution has, at the initial trial, produced insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. [Cits.] The general rule is that retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 311 ( 369 SE2d 232 ) (1988). “[E]ven intentional prosecutorial misconduct do[es] not raise the bar of double jeopardy, notwithstanding the fa 1996“It has been recognized in many cases that the primary purpose underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause is to prohibit the retrial of a criminal defendant where the prosecution has, at the initial trial, produced insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. [Cits.] The general rule is that retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 311 ( 369 SE2d 232 ) (1988). “[E]ven intentional prosecutorial misconduct do[es] not raise the bar of double jeopardy, notwithstanding the fa | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roulain v. Martin
green
1 sentence2007We are “certainly... bound by th[is] ruling..., regardless of whether [it] may be erroneous. [Cits.]” Roulain v. Martin, supra. Although this Court reversed the judgment in Langlands II, we did not explicitly determine whether our holding permitted retrial for firearm possession by a convicted felon. “ ‘The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency. | 1 | 2007–2007 |