test for harmful error (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

test for harmful error in Georgia

11 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2018 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Head v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1996 · cited in 3 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1997–2002
2 sentences

2002Her blood alcohol level was 0.199 which exceeds the legal limit significantly and the evidence of her driving and personal demeanor revealed that she was less safe to drive.” “ ‘The test for harmful error is whether it is “highly probable” that the error contributed to the judgment.’ Head v. State[, 220 Ga. App. 281, 283 (3) ( 469 SE2d 406 ) (1996)].” Smith v. State, 250 Ga. App. 583, 585 (1) ( 552 SE2d 528 ) (2001).

2002Her blood alcohol level was 0.199 which exceeds the legal limit significantly and the evidence of her driving and personal demeanor revealed that she was less safe to drive.” “ ‘The test for harmful error is whether it is “highly probable” that the error contributed to the judgment.’ Head v. State[, 220 Ga. App. 281, 283 (3) ( 469 SE2d 406 ) (1996)].” Smith v. State, 250 Ga. App. 583, 585 (1) ( 552 SE2d 528 ) (2001).

33
Wright v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1997 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1999–2008
2 sentences

2008The test for harmful error is whether it is highly probable that the error contributed to the judgment." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Wright v. State, 226 Ga.App. 499, 500 (2), 486 S.E.2d 711 (1997); Phillips v. State, 241 Ga.App. 764, 767 , 527 S.E.2d 604 (2000).

2008The test for harmful error is whether it is highly probable that the error contributed to the judgment." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Wright v. State, 226 Ga.App. 499, 500 (2), 486 S.E.2d 711 (1997); Phillips v. State, 241 Ga.App. 764, 767 , 527 S.E.2d 604 (2000).

22
Johnson v. Stategreen
ga · 1976 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 ( 230 SE2d 869 ) (1976).

1996Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 ( 230 SE2d 869 ) (1976).

22
Kitchens v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016“The test for harmful error is whether it is ‘highly probable’ that the error contributed to the judgment.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kitchens v. State, 258 Ga. App. 411, 415 (1) ( 574 SE2d 451 ) (2002).

2016“The test for harmful error is whether it is ‘highly probable’ that the error contributed to the judgment.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kitchens v. State, 258 Ga. App. 411, 415 (1) ( 574 SE2d 451 ) (2002).

11
Strahan v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011In determining whether hearsay testimony is harmful, this court has found inadmissible hearsay which is received over objection does not require a new trial if it appears that the evidence could not have affected the verdict.” (footnote omitted)); Strahan v. State, 273 Ga. App. 116, 121 (2) ( 614 SE2d 227 ) (2005) (“The erroneous admission of similar transaction evidence . . . may be harmless error if the State presents such overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the guilty verdict.” (citation and punctuation omitted)).

2011In determining whether hearsay testimony is harmful, this court has found inadmissible hearsay which is received over objection does not require a new trial if it appears that the evidence could not have affected the verdict.” (footnote omitted)); Strahan v. State, 273 Ga. App. 116, 121 (2) ( 614 SE2d 227 ) (2005) (“The erroneous admission of similar transaction evidence . . . may be harmless error if the State presents such overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the guilty verdict.” (citation and punctuation omitted)).

11
Phillips v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008The test for harmful error is whether it is highly probable that the error contributed to the judgment." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Wright v. State, 226 Ga.App. 499, 500 (2), 486 S.E.2d 711 (1997); Phillips v. State, 241 Ga.App. 764, 767 , 527 S.E.2d 604 (2000).

2008The test for harmful error is whether it is highly probable that the error contributed to the judgment." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Wright v. State, 226 Ga.App. 499, 500 (2), 486 S.E.2d 711 (1997); Phillips v. State, 241 Ga.App. 764, 767 , 527 S.E.2d 604 (2000).

11
Ladow v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002Because “ [i] t is highly probable that the evidence that [Kitchens’] blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit contributed to the trial court’s determination that she was less safe to drive [,] ... we cannot find the error harmless.” (Footnote omitted.) Ladow v. State, 256 Ga. App. 726, 730 ( 569 SE2d 572 ) (2002).

2002Because “ [i] t is highly probable that the evidence that [Kitchens’] blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit contributed to the trial court’s determination that she was less safe to drive [,] ... we cannot find the error harmless.” (Footnote omitted.) Ladow v. State, 256 Ga. App. 726, 730 ( 569 SE2d 572 ) (2002).

11
Smith v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002Her blood alcohol level was 0.199 which exceeds the legal limit significantly and the evidence of her driving and personal demeanor revealed that she was less safe to drive.” “ ‘The test for harmful error is whether it is “highly probable” that the error contributed to the judgment.’ Head v. State[, 220 Ga. App. 281, 283 (3) ( 469 SE2d 406 ) (1996)].” Smith v. State, 250 Ga. App. 583, 585 (1) ( 552 SE2d 528 ) (2001).

2002Her blood alcohol level was 0.199 which exceeds the legal limit significantly and the evidence of her driving and personal demeanor revealed that she was less safe to drive.” “ ‘The test for harmful error is whether it is “highly probable” that the error contributed to the judgment.’ Head v. State[, 220 Ga. App. 281, 283 (3) ( 469 SE2d 406 ) (1996)].” Smith v. State, 250 Ga. App. 583, 585 (1) ( 552 SE2d 528 ) (2001).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (2)

CaseNegativeCited
Ellerbee v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011But see *110 Ellerbee v. State, 247 Ga. App. 46, 51 (2) (b) ( 542 SE2d 146 ) (2000) (“Relevant extrinsic acts evidence is not rendered inadmissible despite its incidental tendency to discredit the character of the accused.” (footnote omitted)). 13 Archer v. State, 291 Ga. App. 175, 177-78 (2) ( 661 SE2d 230 ) (2008) (“The test for harmful error is whether it is highly probable that the error contributed to the verdict.

2011But see *110 Ellerbee v. State, 247 Ga. App. 46, 51 (2) (b) ( 542 SE2d 146 ) (2000) (“Relevant extrinsic acts evidence is not rendered inadmissible despite its incidental tendency to discredit the character of the accused.” (footnote omitted)). 13 Archer v. State, 291 Ga. App. 175, 177-78 (2) ( 661 SE2d 230 ) (2008) (“The test for harmful error is whether it is highly probable that the error contributed to the verdict.

11
Archer v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011But see *110 Ellerbee v. State, 247 Ga. App. 46, 51 (2) (b) ( 542 SE2d 146 ) (2000) (“Relevant extrinsic acts evidence is not rendered inadmissible despite its incidental tendency to discredit the character of the accused.” (footnote omitted)). 13 Archer v. State, 291 Ga. App. 175, 177-78 (2) ( 661 SE2d 230 ) (2008) (“The test for harmful error is whether it is highly probable that the error contributed to the verdict.

2011But see *110 Ellerbee v. State, 247 Ga. App. 46, 51 (2) (b) ( 542 SE2d 146 ) (2000) (“Relevant extrinsic acts evidence is not rendered inadmissible despite its incidental tendency to discredit the character of the accused.” (footnote omitted)). 13 Archer v. State, 291 Ga. App. 175, 177-78 (2) ( 661 SE2d 230 ) (2008) (“The test for harmful error is whether it is highly probable that the error contributed to the verdict.

11

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Martinez v. State green
gactapp · 2010
2 sentences

2018"The test for harmful error is whether it is 'highly probable' that the error contributed to the judgment." Martinez v. State , 306 Ga. App. 512 , 525 (5), 702 S.E.2d 747 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2018"The test for harmful error is whether it is 'highly probable' that the error contributed to the judgment." Martinez v. State , 306 Ga. App. 512 , 525 (5), 702 S.E.2d 747 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted).

32013–2018

Where else courts name it

FL 12 (1984–2016) GA 11 (1996–2018) TX 7 (1988–2001)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check