witness defense in Georgia

2024See also Roseboro v. State, 308 Ga. 428, 434 (2) (a) ( 841 SE2d 706 ) (2020) (failure to read an admonition form to the witness before making the identification did not make the procedure unduly suggestive); Ivey, 277 Ga. at 876 - 877 (3) (concluding that, although “it would have been preferable for the investigating officer to give the witness the standard admonition that the lineup may or may not contain a picture of the perpetrator,” the officer’s failure to do so did not make the identification procedure impermissibly suggestive).

2024See also Roseboro v. State, 308 Ga. 428, 434 (2) (a) (841 SE2d 706) (2020) (failure to read an admonition form to the witness before making the identification did not make the procedure unduly suggestive); Ivey, 277 Ga. at 876- 877 (3) (concluding that, although “it would have been preferable for the investigating officer to give the witness the standard admonition that the lineup may or may not contain a picture of the perpetrator,” the officer’s failure to do so did not make the identification procedure impermissibly suggestive).

2019Compare Fisher v. State , 299 Ga. 478 , 485, 788 S.E.2d 757 (2016) (holding that not requesting an accomplice-corroboration instruction was an unreasonable strategy in light of the trial court's decision to give a single witness instruction and the defense theory that the accomplice was trying to shift blame from himself and should not be believed).

2019Compare Fisher v. State , 299 Ga. 478 , 485, 788 S.E.2d 757 (2016) (holding that not requesting an accomplice-corroboration instruction was an unreasonable strategy in light of the trial court's decision to give a single witness instruction and the defense theory that the accomplice was trying to shift blame from himself and should not be believed).

2013Thus, the evidence was undisputed, and Corey does not dispute the officer’s credibility. “[W]hen evidence is uncontroverted and no question of witness credibility is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Hammont v. State, 309 Ga. App. 395, 396 ( 710 SE2d 598 ) (2011).

2013Thus, the evidence was undisputed, and Corey does not dispute the officer’s credibility. “[W]hen evidence is uncontroverted and no question of witness credibility is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Hammont v. State, 309 Ga. App. 395, 396 ( 710 SE2d 598 ) (2011).

2012See Callaham v. State, 305 Ga. App. 626, 628 (1) ( 700 SE2d 624 ) (2010).

2012See Callaham v. State, 305 Ga. App. 626, 628 (1) ( 700 SE2d 624 ) (2010).

2012See Allen v. State, 290 Ga. 743, 746 (3) ( 723 SE2d 684 ) (2012) (omitted jury charge did not affect outcome of proceedings and thus did not constitute plain error, in light of charges when read as a whole); Guillen v. State, 275 Ga. App. 316, 318 (1) ( 620 SE2d 518 ) (2005) (trial court’s refusal to give defendant’s proposed charge on immunity and leniency granted to a witness was not error because “the principle of the proposed charge was covered in the general charge”).

2012See Allen v. State, 290 Ga. 743, 746 (3) ( 723 SE2d 684 ) (2012) (omitted jury charge did not affect outcome of proceedings and thus did not constitute plain error, in light of charges when read as a whole); Guillen v. State, 275 Ga. App. 316, 318 (1) ( 620 SE2d 518 ) (2005) (trial court’s refusal to give defendant’s proposed charge on immunity and leniency granted to a witness was not error because “the principle of the proposed charge was covered in the general charge”).

2012See Allen v. State, 290 Ga. 743, 746 (3) ( 723 SE2d 684 ) (2012) (omitted jury charge did not affect outcome of proceedings and thus did not constitute plain error, in light of charges when read as a whole); Guillen v. State, 275 Ga. App. 316, 318 (1) ( 620 SE2d 518 ) (2005) (trial court’s refusal to give defendant’s proposed charge on immunity and leniency granted to a witness was not error because “the principle of the proposed charge was covered in the general charge”).

2012See Allen v. State, 290 Ga. 743, 746 (3) ( 723 SE2d 684 ) (2012) (omitted jury charge did not affect outcome of proceedings and thus did not constitute plain error, in light of charges when read as a whole); Guillen v. State, 275 Ga. App. 316, 318 (1) ( 620 SE2d 518 ) (2005) (trial court’s refusal to give defendant’s proposed charge on immunity and leniency granted to a witness was not error because “the principle of the proposed charge was covered in the general charge”).

2005Thus, Cayruth has “made no affirmative showing that the purported deficiency in his trial counsel’s representation was indicative of ineffectiveness and was not an example of a conscious and deliberate trial strategy.” Baker v. State, 251 Ga. App. 377, 379 (2) ( 554 SE2d 324 ) (2001).

2005Thus, Cayruth has “made no affirmative showing that the purported deficiency in his trial counsel’s representation was indicative of ineffectiveness and was not an example of a conscious and deliberate trial strategy.” Baker v. State, 251 Ga. App. 377, 379 (2) ( 554 SE2d 324 ) (2001).

1992This court previously has held that in similar circumstances, the exception of a witness from the rule of sequestration does not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, e.g., Mathews v. State, 183 Ga. App. 224 (1) ( 358 SE2d 639 ) (1987); Fowler v. State 179 Ga. App. 492, 493 (2) ( 347 SE2d 322 ) (1986). . . .” Id. at 27-28.

1992This court previously has held that in similar circumstances, the exception of a witness from the rule of sequestration does not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, e.g., Mathews v. State, 183 Ga. App. 224 (1) ( 358 SE2d 639 ) (1987); Fowler v. State 179 Ga. App. 492, 493 (2) ( 347 SE2d 322 ) (1986). . . .” Id. at 27-28.

1946Co. v. Wilcox, 59 Ga. App. 785, 788 ( 2 S. E. 2d, 225 ), a complaint that the court omitted “some of the provisions of said Code section” was held not to require a reversal, where it did not appear that such omission was harmful.

1946Co. v. Wilcox, 59 Ga. App. 785, 788 ( 2 S. E. 2d, 225 ), a complaint that the court omitted “some of the provisions of said Code section” was held not to require a reversal, where it did not appear that such omission was harmful.

2007Lee alleges that his defense counsel was not effective within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (III) (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984), because he failed to call Lee’s wife, who was assigned to work with Lee on the night of the assaults alleged, as a witness in his defense.

1995Charges of ineffective assistance are serious, involving the professionalism of trial counsel; they are time-consuming, usually requiring the presence of trial counsel as a witness in a hearing to defend his or her performance; they are generally ineffectual under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

1992This court previously has held that in similar circumstances, the exception of a witness from the rule of sequestration does not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, e.g., Mathews v. State, 183 Ga. App. 224 (1) ( 358 SE2d 639 ) (1987); Fowler v. State 179 Ga. App. 492, 493 (2) ( 347 SE2d 322 ) (1986). . . .” Id. at 27-28.

1992This court previously has held that in similar circumstances, the exception of a witness from the rule of sequestration does not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, e.g., Mathews v. State, 183 Ga. App. 224 (1) ( 358 SE2d 639 ) (1987); Fowler v. State 179 Ga. App. 492, 493 (2) ( 347 SE2d 322 ) (1986). . . .” Id. at 27-28.

1980Gamarra v. State, 142 Ga. App. 196 (5) ( 235 SE2d 652 ). 5.

1980Gamarra v. State, 142 Ga. App. 196 (5) ( 235 SE2d 652 ). 5.

2025Cf. Shelnutt v. State, 289 Ga. App. 528, 532-34 (3) (5) ( 657 SE2d 611 ) (2008) (affirming convictions for threatening a witness in violation of OCGA § 16-10- 32(b)(1) when defendant caused economic harm by damaging witness’s husband’s car and influencing a witness in violation of OCGA § 16-10-93(b)(1)(A) when defendant demanded witness not testify and threatened to evict witness).

2025Cf. Shelnutt v. State, 289 Ga. App. 528, 532-34 (3) (5) ( 657 SE2d 611 ) (2008) (affirming convictions for threatening a witness in violation of OCGA § 16-10- 32(b)(1) when defendant caused economic harm by damaging witness’s husband’s car and influencing a witness in violation of OCGA § 16-10-93(b)(1)(A) when defendant demanded witness not testify and threatened to evict witness).

2025See generally Johnson v. State, 277 Ga. App. 499, 506 (2) ( 627 SE2d 116 ) (2006) (explaining “that the defendant’s words or conduct communicated an indirect threat . . . may be inferred from . . . circumstances that cast what otherwise could be perceived as innocuous conduct in a different, sinister light”).

2025See generally Johnson v. State, 277 Ga. App. 499, 506 (2) ( 627 SE2d 116 ) (2006) (explaining “that the defendant’s words or conduct communicated an indirect threat . . . may be inferred from . . . circumstances that cast what otherwise could be perceived as innocuous conduct in a different, sinister light”).

2025“Since 5 [Fowler] has not shown that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated [by an invalid inventory], he cannot establish [the requisite strong showing] that a motion to suppress would have been granted if one had been filed [on this ground].” State v. Shelton, 329 Ga. App. 582, 586 (1) (a) ( 765 SE2d 732 ) (2014).

2025“Since 5 [Fowler] has not shown that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated [by an invalid inventory], he cannot establish [the requisite strong showing] that a motion to suppress would have been granted if one had been filed [on this ground].” State v. Shelton, 329 Ga. App. 582, 586 (1) (a) ( 765 SE2d 732 ) (2014).

2024See also Roseboro v. State, 308 Ga. 428, 434 (2) (a) (841 SE2d 706) (2020) (failure to read an admonition form to the witness before making the identification did not make the procedure unduly suggestive); Ivey, 277 Ga. at 876- 877 (3) (concluding that, although “it would have been preferable for the investigating officer to give the witness the standard admonition that the lineup may or may not contain a picture of the perpetrator,” the officer’s failure to do so did not make the identification procedure impermissibly suggestive).

2024See also Roseboro v. State, 308 Ga. 428, 434 (2) (a) (841 SE2d 706) (2020) (failure to read an admonition form to the witness before making the identification did not make the procedure unduly suggestive); Ivey, 277 Ga. at 876- 877 (3) (concluding that, although “it would have been preferable for the investigating officer to give the witness the standard admonition that the lineup may or may not contain a picture of the perpetrator,” the officer’s failure to do so did not make the identification procedure impermissibly suggestive).

2024See id. (a) Jiles first asserts that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he failed to request a jury instruction on accomplice corroboration and did not object to the single witness instruction as given.

2024See id. (a) Jiles first asserts that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he failed to request a jury instruction on accomplice corroboration and did not object to the single witness instruction as given.

2021See Wilson v. State, 286 Ga. 141, 142 (2) ( 686 SE2d 104 ) (2009) (concluding that “a criminal defendant lacks standing to assert another’s privilege against self-incrimination” because “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination is that of the person under examination as a witness and is intended for his protection only”) (citations and punctuation omitted); Lawton v. State, 259 Ga. 855, 856 (2) ( 388 SE2d 691 ) (1990) (defendant could not challenge trial court’s rulings granting a witness immunity from prosecution and requiring the witness to testify at trial because defendant lacked standin

2021But he has not sought to supplement the trial transcript or otherwise perfect the record with respect to any other material that he now speculates may be missing. 9 See Pearson, 311 Ga. at 32-33 (4) (appellant’s due process rights not violated when he made no effort to supplement record through testimony of trial counsel); see also Morris v. State, 308 Ga. 520, 526 n.4 (2) (842 SE2d 45) (2020) (appellant could not show error when he failed to move to amend or correct purportedly inaccurate transcript).

2021But he has not sought to supplement the trial transcript or otherwise perfect the record with respect to any other material that he now speculates may be missing. 9 See Pearson, 311 Ga. at 32-33 (4) (appellant’s due process rights not violated when he made no effort to supplement record through testimony of trial counsel); see also Morris v. State, 308 Ga. 520, 526 n.4 (2) (842 SE2d 45) (2020) (appellant could not show error when he failed to move to amend or correct purportedly inaccurate transcript).

2021But he has not sought to supplement the trial transcript or otherwise perfect the record with respect to any other material that he now speculates may be missing. 9 See Pearson, 311 Ga. at 32-33 (4) (appellant’s due process rights not violated when he made no effort to supplement record through testimony of trial counsel); see also Morris v. State, 308 Ga. 520, 526 n.4 (2) (842 SE2d 45) (2020) (appellant could not show error when he failed to move to amend or correct purportedly inaccurate transcript).

2021But he has not sought to supplement the trial transcript or otherwise perfect the record with respect to any other material that he now speculates may be missing.9 See Pearson, 311 Ga. at 32-33 (4) (appellant’s due process rights not violated when he made no effort to supplement record through testimony of trial counsel); see also Morris v. State, 308 Ga. 520, 526 (2) n.4 ( 842 SE2d 45 ) (2020) (appellant could not show error when he failed to move to amend or correct purportedly inaccurate transcript).

2021See Wilson v. State, 286 Ga. 141, 142 (2) ( 686 SE2d 104 ) (2009) (concluding that “a criminal defendant lacks standing to assert another’s privilege against self-incrimination” because “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination is that of the person under examination as a witness and is intended for his protection only”) (citations and punctuation omitted); Lawton v. State, 259 Ga. 855, 856 (2) ( 388 SE2d 691 ) (1990) (defendant could not challenge trial court’s rulings granting a witness immunity from prosecution and requiring the witness to testify at trial because defendant lacked standin

2021See Wilson v. State, 286 Ga. 141, 142 (2) ( 686 SE2d 104 ) (2009) (concluding that “a criminal defendant lacks standing to assert another’s privilege against self-incrimination” because “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination is that of the person under examination as a witness and is intended for his protection only”) (citations and punctuation omitted); Lawton v. State, 259 Ga. 855, 856 (2) ( 388 SE2d 691 ) (1990) (defendant could not challenge trial court’s rulings granting a witness immunity from prosecution and requiring the witness to testify at trial because defendant lacked standin

2021See Wilson v. State, 286 Ga. 141, 142 (2) ( 686 SE2d 104 ) (2009) (concluding that “a criminal defendant lacks standing to assert another’s privilege against self-incrimination” because “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination is that of the person under examination as a witness and is intended for his protection only”) (citations and punctuation omitted); Lawton v. State, 259 Ga. 855, 856 (2) ( 388 SE2d 691 ) (1990) (defendant could not challenge trial court’s rulings granting a witness immunity from prosecution and requiring the witness to testify at trial because defendant lacked standin

2021See Wilson v. State, 286 Ga. 141, 142 (2) ( 686 SE2d 104 ) (2009) (concluding that “a criminal defendant lacks standing to assert another’s privilege against self-incrimination” because “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination is that of the person under examination as a witness and is intended for his protection only”) (citations and punctuation omitted); Lawton v. State, 259 Ga. 855, 856 (2) ( 388 SE2d 691 ) (1990) (defendant could not challenge trial court’s rulings granting a witness immunity from prosecution and requiring the witness to testify at trial because defendant lacked standin

2020See Perez v. State, 331 Ga. App. 164, 169 (3) (b) ( 770 SE2d 260 ) (2015).

2020See Perez v. State, 331 Ga. App. 164, 169 (3) (b) ( 770 SE2d 260 ) (2015).