12 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walton v. Stategreen2 sentences2009“There is a distinct difference between a challenge to the admission of evidence based upon the Confrontation Clause and that based upon an exception to the hearsay rule.” Walton v. State, 278 Ga. 432, 434 (1) ( 603 SE2d 263 ) (2004). 2009“There is a distinct difference between a challenge to the admission of evidence based upon the Confrontation Clause and that based upon an exception to the hearsay rule.” Walton v. State, 278 Ga. 432, 434 (1) ( 603 SE2d 263 ) (2004). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Daguegreen2 sentences2020Under the third prong of this test, Simpson must 11 State v. Dague, 325 Ga. App. 202, 208 (2) ( 750 SE2d 476 ) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted) (reversing grant of motion for new trial because the defendant had waived his right to confront the child witness). 12 See OCGA § 24-1-103; Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233, 243 (4) ( 794 SE2d 67 ) (2016). 7 “make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below. 2020Under the third prong of this test, Simpson must 11 State v. Dague, 325 Ga. App. 202, 208 (2) ( 750 SE2d 476 ) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted) (reversing grant of motion for new trial because the defendant had waived his right to confront the child witness). 12 See OCGA § 24-1-103; Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233, 243 (4) ( 794 SE2d 67 ) (2016). 7 “make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below. | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Moreover, "[t]here is a distinct difference between a challenge to the admission of evidence based upon the Confrontation Clause and that based upon an exception to the hearsay rule, and appellant's failure to raise an objection at trial on hearsay grounds precludes our consideration of his hearsay objection." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. State , 294 Ga. 86 , 88 (2), 750 S.E.2d 347 (2013). 2019Moreover, "[t]here is a distinct difference between a challenge to the admission of evidence based upon the Confrontation Clause and that based upon an exception to the hearsay rule, and appellant's failure to raise an objection at trial on hearsay grounds precludes our consideration of his hearsay objection." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. State , 294 Ga. 86 , 88 (2), 750 S.E.2d 347 (2013). | 1 | 2 |
Lupoe v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Under the third prong of this test, Simpson must 11 State v. Dague, 325 Ga. App. 202, 208 (2) ( 750 SE2d 476 ) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted) (reversing grant of motion for new trial because the defendant had waived his right to confront the child witness). 12 See OCGA § 24-1-103; Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233, 243 (4) ( 794 SE2d 67 ) (2016). 7 “make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below. 2020Under the third prong of this test, Simpson must 11 State v. Dague, 325 Ga. App. 202, 208 (2) ( 750 SE2d 476 ) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted) (reversing grant of motion for new trial because the defendant had waived his right to confront the child witness). 12 See OCGA § 24-1-103; Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233, 243 (4) ( 794 SE2d 67 ) (2016). 7 “make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below. | 1 | 1 |
Higginbotham v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Cf. Moore v. State, 294 Ga. 682, 684-685 ( 755 SE2d 703 ) (2014) (defendant failed to preserve claim of error based on Confrontation Clause for appellate review because he objected only on hearsay grounds, not Confrontation Clause grounds); Higginbotham v. State, 287 Ga. 187, 189 ( 695 SE2d 210 ) (2010) (same). 2020Cf. Moore v. State, 294 Ga. 682, 684-685 ( 755 SE2d 703 ) (2014) (defendant failed to preserve claim of error based on Confrontation Clause for appellate review because he objected only on hearsay grounds, not Confrontation Clause grounds); Higginbotham v. State, 287 Ga. 187, 189 ( 695 SE2d 210 ) (2010) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Cf. Moore v. State, 294 Ga. 682, 684-685 ( 755 SE2d 703 ) (2014) (defendant failed to preserve claim of error based on Confrontation Clause for appellate review because he objected only on hearsay grounds, not Confrontation Clause grounds); Higginbotham v. State, 287 Ga. 187, 189 ( 695 SE2d 210 ) (2010) (same). 2020Cf. Moore v. State, 294 Ga. 682, 684-685 ( 755 SE2d 703 ) (2014) (defendant failed to preserve claim of error based on Confrontation Clause for appellate review because he objected only on hearsay grounds, not Confrontation Clause grounds); Higginbotham v. State, 287 Ga. 187, 189 ( 695 SE2d 210 ) (2010) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Durham v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Durham v. State, 296 Ga. 376, 379 ( 768 SE2d 512 ) (2015) (“There is a distinct difference between a challenge to the admission of evidence based upon the Confrontation Clause and that based upon an exception to the hearsay rule.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2020See Durham v. State, 296 Ga. 376, 379 ( 768 SE2d 512 ) (2015) (“There is a distinct difference between a challenge to the admission of evidence based upon the Confrontation Clause and that based upon an exception to the hearsay rule.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Miller v. State, 289 Ga. 854, 857 (2) ( 717 SE2d 179 ) (2011) (admission of evidence in violation of confrontation right can be harmless error where evidence at issue is cumulative); Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 404, 408 (3) ( 703 SE2d 624 ) (2010) (admission of hearsay was harmless error because hearsay was cumulative). b. 2014See Miller v. State, 289 Ga. 854, 857 (2) ( 717 SE2d 179 ) (2011) (admission of evidence in violation of confrontation right can be harmless error where evidence at issue is cumulative); Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 404, 408 (3) ( 703 SE2d 624 ) (2010) (admission of hearsay was harmless error because hearsay was cumulative). b. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Miller v. State, 289 Ga. 854, 857 (2) ( 717 SE2d 179 ) (2011) (admission of evidence in violation of confrontation right can be harmless error where evidence at issue is cumulative); Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 404, 408 (3) ( 703 SE2d 624 ) (2010) (admission of hearsay was harmless error because hearsay was cumulative). b. 2014See Miller v. State, 289 Ga. 854, 857 (2) ( 717 SE2d 179 ) (2011) (admission of evidence in violation of confrontation right can be harmless error where evidence at issue is cumulative); Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 404, 408 (3) ( 703 SE2d 624 ) (2010) (admission of hearsay was harmless error because hearsay was cumulative). b. | 1 | 1 |
Yancey v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Yancey v. State, 275 Ga. 550, 551-557 (2) ( 570 SE2d 269 ) (2002). 2004Yancey v. State, 275 Ga. 550, 551-557 (2) ( 570 SE2d 269 ) (2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.