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 2011–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kingdom v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“The test for 38 determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Kingdom v. State, 321 Ga. 363, 369 (2025). 2025See Kingdom, 321 Ga. at 369 (concluding that 29 any error in admitting the detective’s testimony relying on hearsay was harmless under the nonconstitutional harmless error standard). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lanegreen2 sentences2023And we have reviewed such alleged errors under the nonconstitutional harmless test, under which an error is “harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10, 21 (4) (838 SE2d 808) (2020); see also Meadows v. State, 316 Ga. 22, 28 (4) (c) (885 SE2d 780) (2023) (applying nonconstitutional harmlessness test to trial court’s failure to take curative action under OCGA 17-8-75 after the prosecutor commented on defendant’s right to remain 2023And we have reviewed such alleged errors under the nonconstitutional harmless test, under which an error is “harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10, 21 (4) (838 SE2d 808) (2020); see also Meadows v. State, 316 Ga. 22, 28 (4) (c) (885 SE2d 780) (2023) (applying nonconstitutional harmlessness test to trial court’s failure to take curative action under OCGA 17-8-75 after the prosecutor commented on defendant’s right to remain | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mondorgreen2 sentences2025See Burns v. State, 313 Ga. 368, 372 (3) ( 870 SE2d 360 ) (2022) (disagreeing with the trial court’s reasoning but affirming the judgment “because the trial court reached the right result”); State v. Mondor, 306 Ga. 338, 345 (2) ( 830 SE2d 206 ) (2019) (affirming trial court’s exclusion of evidence under right for any reason rule). 2025See Burns v. State, 313 Ga. 368, 372 (3) ( 870 SE2d 360 ) (2022) (disagreeing with the trial court’s reasoning but affirming the judgment “because the trial court reached the right result”); State v. Mondor, 306 Ga. 338, 345 (2) ( 830 SE2d 206 ) (2019) (affirming trial court’s exclusion of evidence under right for any reason rule). | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See also Hampton v. State, 308 Ga. 797 , 802–03 (2020) (assuming error in the admission of hearsay, the error was harmless given the other evidence pointing to the appellant’s guilt). | 1 | 1 |
Kitchens v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Kitchens v. State, 310 Ga. 698, 702 (2) ( 854 SE2d 518 ) (2021) (applying the nonconstitutional harmless error standard to the 14 appellant’s hearsay claim). 2025See Kitchens v. State, 310 Ga. 698, 702 (2) ( 854 SE2d 518 ) (2021) (applying the nonconstitutional harmless error standard to the 14 appellant’s hearsay claim). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025We review Jackson’s argument that the trial court failed to meet its statutory duty under OCGA § 17-8-75 under the nonconstitutional harmless error test, which provides that “an error is harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” Jackson v. State, 317 Ga. 139, 144 (1) ( 891 SE2d 878 ) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted); Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335 , 345- 346 (16) (a) ( 687 SE2d 438 ) (2009). 2025We review Jackson’s argument that the trial court failed to meet its statutory duty under OCGA § 17-8-75 under the nonconstitutional harmless error test, which provides that “an error is harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” Jackson v. State, 317 Ga. 139, 144 (1) ( 891 SE2d 878 ) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted); Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335 , 345- 346 (16) (a) ( 687 SE2d 438 ) (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Burns v. State, 313 Ga. 368, 372 (3) (870 SE2d 360) (2022) (disagreeing with the trial court’s reasoning but affirming the judgment “because the trial court reached the right result”); State v. Mondor, 306 Ga. 338, 345 (2) (830 SE2d 206) (2019) (affirming trial court’s exclusion of evidence under right for any reason rule). 2025See Burns v. State, 313 Ga. 368, 372 (3) ( 870 SE2d 360 ) (2022) (disagreeing with the trial court’s reasoning but affirming the judgment “because the trial court reached the right result”); State v. Mondor, 306 Ga. 338, 345 (2) ( 830 SE2d 206 ) (2019) (affirming trial court’s exclusion of evidence under right for any reason rule). | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Bowman v. State, 319 Ga. 573, 584 (3) ( 905 SE2d 605 ) (2024) (“[T]he test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 2025See Bowman v. State, 319 Ga. 573, 584 (3) ( 905 SE2d 605 ) (2024) (“[T]he test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Under the nonconstitutional harmless- error standard, we examine “whether it is highly probable that the 14 error did not contribute to the verdict” by “review[ing] the record de novo and weigh[ing] the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done so.” Jackson v. State, 306 Ga. 69, 80 (829 SE2d 142) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2024Under the nonconstitutional harmless- error standard, we examine “whether it is highly probable that the 14 error did not contribute to the verdict” by “review[ing] the record de novo and weigh[ing] the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done so.” Jackson v. State, 306 Ga. 69, 80 (829 SE2d 142) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Meadows v. Stategreen2 sentences2023And we have reviewed such alleged errors under the nonconstitutional harmless test, under which an error is “harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10, 21 (4) (838 SE2d 808) (2020); see also Meadows v. State, 316 Ga. 22, 28 (4) (c) (885 SE2d 780) (2023) (applying nonconstitutional harmlessness test to trial court’s failure to take curative action under OCGA 17-8-75 after the prosecutor commented on defendant’s right to remain 2023And we have reviewed such alleged errors under the nonconstitutional harmless test, under which an error is “harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10, 21 (4) (838 SE2d 808) (2020); see also Meadows v. State, 316 Ga. 22, 28 (4) (c) (885 SE2d 780) (2023) (applying nonconstitutional harmlessness test to trial court’s failure to take curative action under OCGA 17-8-75 after the prosecutor commented on defendant’s right to remain | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011You will make a decision about what those things mean about her state of mind, her bent of mind, and her depravity of mind.” 4 “Having reversed the judgment under the nonconstitutional harmless error test we do not reach [appellant’s contention that] the error here is of constitutional magnitude.” Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 62 ( 230 SE2d 869 ) (1976). 2011You will make a decision about what those things mean about her state of mind, her bent of mind, and her depravity of mind.” 4 “Having reversed the judgment under the nonconstitutional harmless error test we do not reach [appellant’s contention that] the error here is of constitutional magnitude.” Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 62 ( 230 SE2d 869 ) (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sims v. State
green
2 sentences2025Likewise, the State points to no authority applying the nonconstitutional harmless error standard to an error of this type under OCGA § 17- 8-57 (c) where the statute plainly requires reversal.17 Although the 17 We recognize that in Sims v. State, 266 Ga. 417 ( 467 SE2d 574 ) (1996), we held that the trial court’s comments on the guilt of the accused were 21 trial court incorrectly applied plain error review in assessing its jury instructions, the court relied on the proper cases and ultimately reached the correct result in determining that a new trial is required in these circumstances. 2025Likewise, the State points to no authority applying the nonconstitutional harmless error standard to an error of this type under OCGA § 17- 8-57 (c) where the statute plainly requires reversal.17 Although the 17 We recognize that in Sims v. State, 266 Ga. 417 ( 467 SE2d 574 ) (1996), we held that the trial court’s comments on the guilt of the accused were 21 trial court incorrectly applied plain error review in assessing its jury instructions, the court relied on the proper cases and ultimately reached the correct result in determining that a new trial is required in these circumstances. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Arrington v. State
green
2 sentences2025We review Jackson’s argument that the trial court failed to meet its statutory duty under OCGA § 17-8-75 under the nonconstitutional harmless error test, which provides that “an error is harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” Jackson v. State, 317 Ga. 139, 144 (1) ( 891 SE2d 878 ) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted); Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335 , 345- 346 (16) (a) ( 687 SE2d 438 ) (2009). 2025We review Jackson’s argument that the trial court failed to meet its statutory duty under OCGA § 17-8-75 under the nonconstitutional harmless error test, which provides that “an error is harmless if the State shows that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict, an inquiry that involves consideration of the other evidence heard by the jury.” Jackson v. State, 317 Ga. 139, 144 (1) ( 891 SE2d 878 ) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted); Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335 , 345- 346 (16) (a) ( 687 SE2d 438 ) (2009). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence2025“When the error is admitting evidence that should not have been admitted, the harmless-error question turns on how much the wrongly admitted evidence likely mattered to the jury’s decision to convict.” Harris v. State, 321 Ga. 87 , 101-102 (2) (b) ( 913 SE2d 570 ) (2025). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pounds v. State
green
2 sentences2025“Under the nonconstitutional harmless-error standard, we examine ‘whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict’ by ‘review[ing] the record de novo and weigh[ing] the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done so.’” Pounds v. State, 320 Ga. 288 , 294 (3) (b) ( 908 SE2d 631 ) (2024) (citation omitted). 2025“Under the nonconstitutional harmless-error standard, we examine ‘whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict’ by ‘review[ing] the record de novo and weigh[ing] the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done so.’” Pounds v. State, 320 Ga. 288 , 294 (3) (b) ( 908 SE2d 631 ) (2024) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.