Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schneble v. Floridagreen2 sentences1986Here the alleged juror misconduct was not so prejudicial to the defendant as to constitute reversible error and "[t]he testimony of the jurors at the hearing [on the motion] convinces us that there is no `reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction [and] reversal is not required.' Schneble v. Florida, 405 U. S. 427, 432 (92 SC 1056, 31 LE2d 340)." Chadwick v. State, supra at 103. 1986Here the alleged juror misconduct was not so prejudicial to the defendant as to constitute reversible error and “[t]he testimony of the jurors at the hearing [on the motion] convinces us that there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction [and] reversal is not required.’ Schneble v. Florida, 405 U. S. 427, 432 (92 SC 1056, 31 LE2d 340).” Chadwick v. State, supra at 103. | 3 | 3 |
Hicks v. Stategreen2 sentences1949"There are two types of improper statements made in argument of counsel, to wit: (a) One that can be cured by the court['s] rebuking counsel, or giving needed instructions to the jury or both . . (b) Where an irrelevant statement is so inflammatory and prejudicial that its injurious effect cannot be eradicated from the minds of the jurors by instruction from the court to disregard it." Hicks v. State, 196 Ga. 671 , 673 ( 27 S.E.2d 307 ), and cit. 1949"There are two types of improper statements made in argument of counsel, to wit: (a) One that can be cured by the court['s] rebuking counsel, or giving needed instructions to the jury or both . . (b) Where an irrelevant statement is so inflammatory and prejudicial that its injurious effect cannot be eradicated from the minds of the jurors by instruction from the court to disregard it." Hicks v. State, 196 Ga. 671 , 673 ( 27 S.E.2d 307 ), and cit. | 2 | 3 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences1983See Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 60-61 ( 230 SE2d 869 ).” In this case, the identity of the defendant Boles is not in issue; he admitted being at the scene. 1983See Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 60-61 ( 230 SE2d 869 ).” In this case, the identity of the defendant Boles is not in issue; he admitted being at the scene. | 2 | 2 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences2024McCloud did not preserve them for ordinary appellate review because he “did not raise any objection below to the trial court’s handling of [this] issue.” Clark v. State, 315 Ga. 1, 5 (2) (b) ( 880 SE2d 201 ) (2022) (concerning alleged juror misconduct). 2024McCloud did not preserve them for ordinary appellate review because he “did not raise any objection below to the trial court’s handling of [this] issue.” Clark v. State, 315 Ga. 1, 5 (2) (b) ( 880 SE2d 201 ) (2022) (concerning alleged juror misconduct). | 1 | 1 |
Boles v. Stategreen2 sentences1986See also Boles v. State, 168 Ga. App. 904 ( 310 SE2d 741 ) (1983). 1986See also Boles v. State, 168 Ga. App. 904 ( 310 SE2d 741 ) (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watkins v. State
green
2 sentences1983Watkins v. State, 237 Ga. 678 , supra. The testimony of the jurors at the hearing convinces us that there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction (and) reversal is not required.’ Schneble v. Florida, 405 U. S. 427, 432 (92 SC 1056, 31 LE2d 340). 1982Watkins v. State, 237 Ga. 678 , supra. The testimony of the jurors at the hearing convinces us that there is no “reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction [and] reversal is not required.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U. S. 427, 432 (92 SC 1056, 31 LE2d 340). | 2 | 1982–1983 |
Van v. State
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Walls v. Kim
green
2 sentences2003After such explanation, Davis stated he would "attempt to be impartial," and Kirby stated that she would "try to be fair." Under the circumstances presented, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pitts' motion to strike prospective jurors Davis and Kirby for cause. (b) Because, as noted above, the trial court refused to permit Davis or Kirby to speculate on the facts of this case and, instead, inquired as to the jurors' ability to be fair and impartial, Pitts claims that the court engaged in an improper "rehabilitation" of the jurors in violation of the holding in Wal 2003After such explanation, Davis stated he would "attempt to be impartial," and Kirby stated that she would "try to be fair." Under the circumstances presented, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pitts' motion to strike prospective jurors Davis and Kirby for cause. (b) Because, as noted above, the trial court refused to permit Davis or Kirby to speculate on the facts of this case and, instead, inquired as to the jurors' ability to be fair and impartial, Pitts claims that the court engaged in an improper "rehabilitation" of the jurors in violation of the holding in Wal | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Kim v. Walls
green
2 sentences2003After such explanation, Davis stated he would "attempt to be impartial," and Kirby stated that she would "try to be fair." Under the circumstances presented, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pitts' motion to strike prospective jurors Davis and Kirby for cause. (b) Because, as noted above, the trial court refused to permit Davis or Kirby to speculate on the facts of this case and, instead, inquired as to the jurors' ability to be fair and impartial, Pitts claims that the court engaged in an improper "rehabilitation" of the jurors in violation of the holding in Wal 2003After such explanation, Davis stated he would "attempt to be impartial," and Kirby stated that she would "try to be fair." Under the circumstances presented, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pitts' motion to strike prospective jurors Davis and Kirby for cause. (b) Because, as noted above, the trial court refused to permit Davis or Kirby to speculate on the facts of this case and, instead, inquired as to the jurors' ability to be fair and impartial, Pitts claims that the court engaged in an improper "rehabilitation" of the jurors in violation of the holding in Wal | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ratcliff v. Smith
green
1 sentence1962“An instruction to the jury, which, in attempting to define ordinary care, makes the jurors the standard of what is a prudent person is erroneous.” Mayor &c. of Americus v. Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 378 (3) ( 58 SE 518 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Mayor of Americus v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1962“An instruction to the jury, which, in attempting to define ordinary care, makes the jurors the standard of what is a prudent person is erroneous.” Mayor &c. of Americus v. Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 378 (3) ( 58 SE 518 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.