12 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1935–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2024If the defendant makes this showing, then this Court may exercise its “discretion to remedy the error only if the error ‘seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. at 273 (4) (quoting Hawkins v. State, 304 Ga. 299, 302 (3) ( 818 SE2d 513 ) (2018)) (alter- ation accepted). 2024If the defendant makes this showing, then this Court may exercise its “discretion to remedy the error only if the error ‘seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. at 273 (4) (quoting Hawkins v. State, 304 Ga. 299, 302 (3) ( 818 SE2d 513 ) (2018)) (alter- ation accepted). | 2 | 2 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2024If the defendant makes this showing, then this Court may exercise its “discretion to remedy the error only if the error ‘seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputa- tion of judicial proceedings.’” Id. at 273 (4) (quoting Hawkins v. State, 304 Ga. 299, 302 (3) ( 818 SE2d 513 ) (2018)) (alteration ac- cepted). 2024If the defendant makes this showing, then this Court may exercise its “discretion to remedy the error only if the error ‘seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. at 273 (4) (quoting Hawkins v. State, 304 Ga. 299, 302 (3) ( 818 SE2d 513 ) (2018)) (alter- ation accepted). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2022(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams, 306 Ga. at 720 (2). | 1 | 1 |
Ruffin v. the Stategreen2 sentences2016Ruffin v. State, 333 Ga. App. 793, 794 (2) ( 777 SE2d 262 ) (2015). 2016Ruffin v. State, 333 Ga. App. 793, 794 (2) ( 777 SE2d 262 ) (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Mattarochia v. Stategreen2 sentences1993OCGA § 9-11-61; see Mattarochia v. State, 200 Ga. App. 681, 685 (5e) ( 409 SE2d 546 ). 3. 1993OCGA § 9-11-61; see Mattarochia v. State, 200 Ga. App. 681, 685 (5e) ( 409 SE2d 546 ). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen2 sentences1975In weighing the harm to defendant occasioned by this error, however, we note that the jury was charged that flight is "not sufficient of itself to establish guilt . . . and at most is only one of a series of circumstances from which guilt might be inferred.” While acknowledging the error of the instruction, "Our inquiry must be whether on this record taken as a whole prejudicial error has occurred.” Robinson v. State, 232 Ga. 123, 128 ( 205 SE2d 210 ). 1975In weighing the harm to defendant occasioned by this error, however, we note that the jury was charged that flight is "not sufficient of itself to establish guilt . . . and at most is only one of a series of circumstances from which guilt might be inferred.” While acknowledging the error of the instruction, "Our inquiry must be whether on this record taken as a whole prejudicial error has occurred.” Robinson v. State, 232 Ga. 123, 128 ( 205 SE2d 210 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Samaritano
green
2 sentences2021By that we mean whether there is an error in the instruction “that is harmful as a matter of law—i.e., blatantly apparent and prejudicial to the extent it raises the question of whether the losing party has, to some extent at least, been deprived of a fair trial because of it, or a gross injustice is about to result or has resulted directly attributable to the alleged errors.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Maki, 358 Ga. App. at __ (1) (855 SE2d at 76 (1)). 6 Bell v. Samaritano, 196 Ga. App. 612 ( 396 SE2d 520 ) (1990), does not require a different result. 2021By that we mean whether there is an error in the instruction “that is harmful as a matter of law—i.e., blatantly apparent and prejudicial to the extent it raises the question of whether the losing party has, to some extent at least, been deprived of a fair trial because of it, or a gross injustice is about to result or has resulted directly attributable to the alleged errors.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Maki, 358 Ga. App. at __ (1) (855 SE2d at 76 (1)). 6 Bell v. Samaritano, 196 Ga. App. 612 ( 396 SE2d 520 ) (1990), does not require a different result. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2019Kelly, 290 Ga. at 33 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Holloman v. State
green
1 sentence2016To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show that the jury instruction was erroneous, that the error in the instruction was obvious, that the instruction likely affected the outcome of the trial, and that “the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation of [the] judicial proceeding[ ].” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Mason v. State
green
1 sentence2016See Mason, supra (where defendant’s “merged” felony murder and aggravated assault convictions stood vacated by operation of law and fact, any complaint as to the jury instructions on those charges was moot). (b) After charging the jury on criminal attempt to commit malice murder, the trial court gave additional instructions applicable to the offense of malice murder. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2000Strickland v. Washington, supra. Since the Court recognized without question that counsel committed an error and that this error prejudiced him because it resulted in an enhanced sentence, McDuffie is in error. 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Wiley v. State
green
2 sentences1935“An exception to a charge not erroneous in the abstract must point out its specific defect, and the attention of the court must be specifically directed to the error in the instruction alleged to be erroneous.” Wiley v. State, 3 Ga. App. 120 (4) ( 59 S. E. 438 ). 1935“An exception to a charge not erroneous in the abstract must point out its specific defect, and the attention of the court must be specifically directed to the error in the instruction alleged to be erroneous.” Wiley v. State, 3 Ga. App. 120 (4) ( 59 S. E. 438 ). | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.