Marshall claim in Georgia

2015See Charleston v. State, 292 Ga. 678, 682-683 (4) (a) ( 743 SE2d 1 ) (2013).

2015See Charleston v. State, 292 Ga. 678, 682-683 (4) (a) ( 743 SE2d 1 ) (2013).

2013Whorton v. State, 318 Ga. App. 885, 893 (4) (e) ( 735 SE2d 7 ) (2012). (b) Marshall also maintains that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to request a continuance so that an investigator could appear at trial to testify on his behalf.

2013Whorton v. State, 318 Ga. App. 885, 893 (4) (e) ( 735 SE2d 7 ) (2012). (b) Marshall also maintains that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to request a continuance so that an investigator could appear at trial to testify on his behalf.

2021In any event, the issue before us is whether the circumstances under which an otherwise proper Allen charge was given rendered it coercive. 14 Smith, 302 Ga. at 721 (2); see Drayton v. State, 297 Ga. 743, 749 (2) (b) ( 778 SE2d 179 ) (2015) (considering the totality of the circumstances in finding that a 12 Here, prior to the note that prompted it to give the Allen charge, the trial court instructed the jury to continue deliberations three times after receiving notes essentially stating that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.15 But after the court received a fourth note, which singl

2021In any event, the issue before us is whether the circumstances under which an otherwise proper Allen charge was given rendered it coercive. 14 Smith, 302 Ga. at 721 (2); see Drayton v. State, 297 Ga. 743, 749 (2) (b) ( 778 SE2d 179 ) (2015) (considering the totality of the circumstances in finding that a 12 Here, prior to the note that prompted it to give the Allen charge, the trial court instructed the jury to continue deliberations three times after receiving notes essentially stating that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.15 But after the court received a fourth note, which singl

2020See Favors v. State, 296 Ga. 842, 848 (5) ( 770 SE2d 855 ) (2015) (“The burglary count . . . does not merge with malice murder as a matter of law, because each crime by definition requires proof of an element that the other does not.”).

2020See Favors v. State, 296 Ga. 842, 848 (5) ( 770 SE2d 855 ) (2015) (“The burglary count . . . does not merge with malice murder as a matter of law, because each crime by definition requires proof of an element that the other does not.”).

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011Smith, P. J., and Dillard, J., concur. 1 (Footnotes omitted.) Valades v. Uslu, 301 Ga. App. 885, 886 ( 689 SE2d 338 ) (2009). 2 Browning does not contend that a prosecution was not carried on for purposes of Marshall’s claim for malicious prosecution.

2011Smith, P. J., and Dillard, J., concur. 1 (Footnotes omitted.) Valades v. Uslu, 301 Ga. App. 885, 886 ( 689 SE2d 338 ) (2009). 2 Browning does not contend that a prosecution was not carried on for purposes of Marshall’s claim for malicious prosecution.

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2011See McNeely v. The Home Depot, 275 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 621 SE2d 473 ) (2005) (evidence that plaintiff was brought before a judge raises an inference that he was taken before a committing court). 3 See Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159, 160 (2) ( 573 SE2d 417 ) (2002) (“courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the officer in his personal capacity”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 See OCGA §§ 51-7-40; 51-7-43; 51-7-44. 5 (Emphasis in original.) Anderson, supra. 6 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)

2005Co., 187 Ga. App. 670, 670-671 ( 371 SE2d 144 ) (1988) (“Where an insurance policy is unambiguous, parol evidence as to what was said by parties at the time application for the policy was taken is inadmissible to vary or alter the terms of the policy.”) (punctuation omitted) (physical precedent only). 7 Compare Sapp v. State Farm Fire &c.

2005Co., 187 Ga. App. 670, 670-671 ( 371 SE2d 144 ) (1988) (“Where an insurance policy is unambiguous, parol evidence as to what was said by parties at the time application for the policy was taken is inadmissible to vary or alter the terms of the policy.”) (punctuation omitted) (physical precedent only). 7 Compare Sapp v. State Farm Fire &c.

2005Although we initially denied Marshall’s motion, we have, in our discretion, considered his late-filed reply brief in resolving this appeal. 2 See Ades v. Werther, 256 Ga. App. 8 ( 567 SE2d 340 ) (2002). 3 See id. 4 (Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 10 (1). 5 See id.; Spoon v. Herndon, 167 Ga. App. 794, 795 (1) ( 307 SE2d 693 ) (1983). 6 See Elrod’s Custom Drapery Workshop v. Cincinnati Ins.

2005Although we initially denied Marshall’s motion, we have, in our discretion, considered his late-filed reply brief in resolving this appeal. 2 See Ades v. Werther, 256 Ga. App. 8 ( 567 SE2d 340 ) (2002). 3 See id. 4 (Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 10 (1). 5 See id.; Spoon v. Herndon, 167 Ga. App. 794, 795 (1) ( 307 SE2d 693 ) (1983). 6 See Elrod’s Custom Drapery Workshop v. Cincinnati Ins.

2004Therein, as a person who had been present at the April 4 auction, Crawford v. McDonald, 125 Ga. App. 289, 291 ( 187 SE2d 542 ) (1972) (evidence on summary judgment must affirmatively show that affiant competent to testify to matters stated therein), Moss denied that Hudson & Marshall’s auctioneer made an announcement at the auction to the effect that the sellers had “reserved the right to ‘confirm’ or otherwise approve the sale of the property after the auction.” Rather than the foregoing reservation of right, Moss stated that the auctioneer announced that the sale was subject to the approval

2004Therein, as a person who had been present at the April 4 auction, Crawford v. McDonald, 125 Ga. App. 289, 291 ( 187 SE2d 542 ) (1972) (evidence on summary judgment must affirmatively show that affiant competent to testify to matters stated therein), Moss denied that Hudson & Marshall’s auctioneer made an announcement at the auction to the effect that the sellers had “reserved the right to ‘confirm’ or otherwise approve the sale of the property after the auction.” Rather than the foregoing reservation of right, Moss stated that the auctioneer announced that the sale was subject to the approval

2003See McClain v. State, 267 Ga. 378 (3)(a), 477 S.E.2d 814 (1996). 6.

2003See McClain v. State, 267 Ga. 378 (3)(a), 477 S.E.2d 814 (1996). 6.

1998See Livingston v. State, 266 Ga. 501, 502 (1) ( 467 SE2d 886 ) (1996).

1998See Livingston v. State, 266 Ga. 501, 502 (1) ( 467 SE2d 886 ) (1996).

1997Armenise v. Adventist Health System &c., 219 Ga. App. 591, 592 ( 466 SE2d 58 ) (1995); Stouffer Corp. v. Henkel, 170 Ga. App. 383 (1) ( 317 SE2d 222 ) (1984). (a) The only evidence put forward by Santangelo concerning Marshall’s actual knowledge of problems with the railing was a statement made by Mrs. Marshall while she was visiting Santangelo in the hospital.

1997Armenise v. Adventist Health System &c., 219 Ga. App. 591, 592 ( 466 SE2d 58 ) (1995); Stouffer Corp. v. Henkel, 170 Ga. App. 383 (1) ( 317 SE2d 222 ) (1984). (a) The only evidence put forward by Santangelo concerning Marshall’s actual knowledge of problems with the railing was a statement made by Mrs. Marshall while she was visiting Santangelo in the hospital.