failed rule in Georgia

2023See Jones v. State, 280 Ga. App. 287, 297-298 (5) ( 633 SE2d 806 ) (2006) (remanding case to the trial court where the trial court failed to rule on one of defendant’s claims of error in his motion for new trial) (physical precedent only).

2023See Jones v. State, 280 Ga. App. 287, 297-298 (5) ( 633 SE2d 806 ) (2006) (remanding case to the trial court where the trial court failed to rule on one of defendant’s claims of error in his motion for new trial) (physical precedent only).

2021But because the trial court failed to rule on Zeh’s requests for discovery, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals with direction that it remand the case to the trial court to rule on the have been subjected to a SLAPP an avenue for ending the suit quickly, summarily, and at minimal expense.” Geer v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 310 Ga. 279, 282 (849 SE2d 660) (2020). 2 Although the Court of Appeals’ opinion referred to the “American Civil Liberties Union, LLC,” the ACLU is actually a nonprofit corporation. 2 discovery motions and then proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion

2021But because the trial court failed to rule on Zeh’s requests for discovery, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals with direction that it remand the case to the trial court to rule on the have been subjected to a SLAPP an avenue for ending the suit quickly, summarily, and at minimal expense.” Geer v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 310 Ga. 279, 282 (849 SE2d 660) (2020). 2 Although the Court of Appeals’ opinion referred to the “American Civil Liberties Union, LLC,” the ACLU is actually a nonprofit corporation. 2 discovery motions and then proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da

2017Yates, 438 F3d at 1315-1316 (III) (A) (trial court erred by allowing two-way video conference testimony in part because the court failed to hold hearing to consider evidence of necessity for video conference testimony and instead relied on the government’s assertions, and failed to make case-specific findings of necessity); State v. Thomas, 376 P3d 184, 195 (II) (B) (3) (N.M. 2016) (where court “did not conduct an evidentiary hearing or enter any findings on the [Craig test] . . . the admission of remote testimony violated Defendant’s right to confrontation”).

2016“An out-of-time appeal is a judicial creation that serves as the remedy for a frustrated right of appeal.” Kilgore v. State, 325 Ga. App. 874, 875 (1) ( 756 SE2d 9 ) (2014) (citation omitted).

2016“An out-of-time appeal is a judicial creation that serves as the remedy for a frustrated right of appeal.” Kilgore v. State, 325 Ga. App. 874, 875 (1) ( 756 SE2d 9 ) (2014) (citation omitted).

2014But see Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262 (2) ( 737 SE2d 311 ) (2013) (where the judgment was vacated and remanded for further action because the trial court failed to rule on the general grounds raised in appellant’s motion for new trial and applied only the sufficiency of the evidence standard in denying the motion); compare Strapp v. State, 326 Ga. App. 264 (3) ( 756 SE2d 333 ) (2014) (appellant induced error, if any, with respect to the trial court’s failure to rule upon his motion for new trial on the general grounds by indicating at the hearing that he was arguing only the sufficiency of the

2014But see Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262 (2) ( 737 SE2d 311 ) (2013) (where the judgment was vacated and remanded for further action because the trial court failed to rule on the general grounds raised in appellant’s motion for new trial and applied only the sufficiency of the evidence standard in denying the motion); compare Strapp v. State, 326 Ga. App. 264 (3) ( 756 SE2d 333 ) (2014) (appellant induced error, if any, with respect to the trial court’s failure to rule upon his motion for new trial on the general grounds by indicating at the hearing that he was arguing only the sufficiency of the

2007See Chester v. State, 262 Ga. 85, 88 (3) ( 414 SE2d 477 ) (1992).

2007See Chester v. State, 262 Ga. 85, 88 (3) ( 414 SE2d 477 ) (1992).

2007However, his attorney did not ever renew the objection or otherwise seek a ruling. “ ‘It is the duty of counsel to obtain a ruling on his motions or objections .... [Cit.]’ [Cit.]” Bell v. Owens, 230 Ga. App. 826, 828 (3) ( 497 SE2d 591 ) (1998).

2007However, his attorney did not ever renew the objection or otherwise seek a ruling. “ ‘It is the duty of counsel to obtain a ruling on his motions or objections .... [Cit.]’ [Cit.]” Bell v. Owens, 230 Ga. App. 826, 828 (3) ( 497 SE2d 591 ) (1998).

2007Sanders v. State, 179 Ga. App. 168, 169 (2) ( 345 SE2d 677 ) (1986) (“the contended problem cannot be made the basis of appellate review as there is no ruling to review”) (citation omitted).

2007Sanders v. State, 179 Ga. App. 168, 169 (2) ( 345 SE2d 677 ) (1986) (“the contended problem cannot be made the basis of appellate review as there is no ruling to review”) (citation omitted).

1999Even if we were to agree that the trial court should have ruled on the motion before the trial started, we cannot reverse Green’s conviction “where as here, appellant can show no prejudice suffered from the failure to have the hearing before trial.” Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 144 (6) ( 390 SE2d 841 ) (1990).

1999Even if we were to agree that the trial court should have ruled on the motion before the trial started, we cannot reverse Green’s conviction “where as here, appellant can show no prejudice suffered from the failure to have the hearing before trial.” Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 144 (6) ( 390 SE2d 841 ) (1990).

1998Consequently, “we would remind the trial courts of this state of our preference for findings of fact which comport with the form suggested in Berry v. State, [ 254 Ga. 101, 104-105 (1), fn. 6 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985)].” Bryant v. State, 268 Ga. 664, 667 ( 492 SE2d 868 ) (1997).

1998Consequently, “we would remind the trial courts of this state of our preference for findings of fact which comport with the form suggested in Berry v. State, [ 254 Ga. 101, 104-105 (1), fn. 6 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985)].” Bryant v. State, 268 Ga. 664, 667 ( 492 SE2d 868 ) (1997).

1998Consequently, “we would remind the trial courts of this state of our preference for findings of fact which comport with the form suggested in Berry v. State, [ 254 Ga. 101, 104-105 (1), fn. 6 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985)].” Bryant v. State, 268 Ga. 664, 667 ( 492 SE2d 868 ) (1997).

1998Consequently, “we would remind the trial courts of this state of our preference for findings of fact which comport with the form suggested in Berry v. State, [ 254 Ga. 101, 104-105 (1), fn. 6 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985)].” Bryant v. State, 268 Ga. 664, 667 ( 492 SE2d 868 ) (1997).

1988That complaint is without merit. “ ‘Where counsel elicits testimony unfavorable to his client, he will not be heard to object to it. [Cits.]’ Here, “ ‘ “counsel asked a question which left the field wide open for a reply such as was given and . . . can not complain of the outcome. [Cits.]” ’ ” Sims v. State, 180 Ga. App. 537, 538 ( 349 SE2d 783 ) (1986).

1988That complaint is without merit. “ ‘Where counsel elicits testimony unfavorable to his client, he will not be heard to object to it. [Cits.]’ Here, “ ‘ “counsel asked a question which left the field wide open for a reply such as was given and . . . can not complain of the outcome. [Cits.]” ’ ” Sims v. State, 180 Ga. App. 537, 538 ( 349 SE2d 783 ) (1986).

1977See Manuel v. Manuel, supra, for a further discussion of these issues.

1977See Manuel v. Manuel, supra, for a further discussion of these issues.