enumerations error in Georgia

1991“The burden is on the appellant to show error by the record, and when a portion of the evidence . . . bearing upon the issues raised by the enumerations of error, is not brought up in the appellate record so that this court can make its determination from a consideration of it all, an affirmance as to that issue must result. [Cits.]” Morris v. Hodge, 152 Ga. App. 815, 816-817 ( 264 SE2d 482 ) (1979).

1991“The burden is on the appellant to show error by the record, and when a portion of the evidence . . . bearing upon the issues raised by the enumerations of error, is not brought up in the appellate record so that this court can make its determination from a consideration of it all, an affirmance as to that issue must result. [Cits.]” Morris v. Hodge, 152 Ga. App. 815, 816-817 ( 264 SE2d 482 ) (1979).

1969Accordingly, under the decisions of the court in Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 (2) ( 154 SE2d 710 ) and Crider v. State of Ga., 115 Ga. App. 347 (1) ( 154 SE2d 743 ), the enumerations of error for which there is no reference made in either the enumerations or the brief will be considered as abandoned.” Brickle v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 117 Ga. App. 557 ( 161 SE2d 424 ).

1968Accordingly, under the decisions of the court in Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 (2) ( 154 SE2d 710 ) and Crider v. State of Ga., 115 Ga. App. 347 (1) ( 154 SE2d 743 ) the enumerations of error for which there is no reference made in either the enumeration or the brief will be considered as abandoned. *227 Argued September 7, 1967 — Decided January 29, 1968 Rehearing denied February 13, 1968 Thibadeau & Smith, Richard A. Thibadeau, for appellants.

1969Accordingly, under the decisions of the court in Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 (2) ( 154 SE2d 710 ) and Crider v. State of Ga., 115 Ga. App. 347 (1) ( 154 SE2d 743 ), the enumerations of error for which there is no reference made in either the enumerations or the brief will be considered as abandoned.” Brickle v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 117 Ga. App. 557 ( 161 SE2d 424 ).

1968Accordingly, under the decisions of the court in Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 (2) ( 154 SE2d 710 ) and Crider v. State of Ga., 115 Ga. App. 347 (1) ( 154 SE2d 743 ) the enumerations of error for which there is no reference made in either the enumeration or the brief will be considered as abandoned. *227 Argued September 7, 1967 — Decided January 29, 1968 Rehearing denied February 13, 1968 Thibadeau & Smith, Richard A. Thibadeau, for appellants.

1971Prior to Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263 ( 161 SE2d 281 ), the Supreme Court decided three appeals from which the overruling of a motion for a new trial was not appealed, yet the court considered enumerations of error on the same questions which were raised in the motion for new trial.

1971Prior to Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263 ( 161 SE2d 281 ), the Supreme Court decided three appeals from which the overruling of a motion for a new trial was not appealed, yet the court considered enumerations of error on the same questions which were raised in the motion for new trial.

2026See Patterson v. Prof’ Res., Inc., 140 Ga. App. 315, 316 (3) ( 231 SE2d 88 ) (1976) (“When ... the brief contains nothing more than a statement of contentions unsupported by citation of legal authority, the enumerations of error must be deemed abandoned under Rule [25(d)(1)] of this Court.” (quotation marks omitted)). 46 We acknowledge that this factual finding appears to be inconsistent with the jury’s other factual findings and its verdict as a whole, but this discrepancy is not dispositive of any of the arguments the Cottons raise on appeal.

2026See Patterson v. Prof’ Res., Inc., 140 Ga. App. 315, 316 (3) ( 231 SE2d 88 ) (1976) (“When ... the brief contains nothing more than a statement of contentions unsupported by citation of legal authority, the enumerations of error must be deemed abandoned under Rule [25(d)(1)] of this Court.” (quotation marks omitted)). 46 We acknowledge that this factual finding appears to be inconsistent with the jury’s other factual findings and its verdict as a whole, but this discrepancy is not dispositive of any of the arguments the Cottons raise on appeal.

2014“An appellant has the burden *421 of providing us with a sufficient record to enable us to review the enumerations of error raised.” (Citation omitted.) Austell Healthcare v. Scott, 308 Ga. App. 393, 395 (1) ( 707 SE2d 599 ) (2011). 2.

2014“An appellant has the burden *421 of providing us with a sufficient record to enable us to review the enumerations of error raised.” (Citation omitted.) Austell Healthcare v. Scott, 308 Ga. App. 393, 395 (1) ( 707 SE2d 599 ) (2011). 2.

1998Brown v. State, 191 Ga. App. 76, 79 (4) ( 381 SE2d 101 ) (1989) (“[a]n appellant cannot expand his enumerations of error by brief to include issues not raised in the enumerations of error”). *694 Decided May 27, 1998.

1998Brown v. State, 191 Ga. App. 76, 79 (4) ( 381 SE2d 101 ) (1989) (“[a]n appellant cannot expand his enumerations of error by brief to include issues not raised in the enumerations of error”). *694 Decided May 27, 1998.

1997See Brown v. State, 191 Ga. App. 76, 79 (4) ( 381 SE2d 101 ) (1989) (“[a]n appellant cannot expand his enumerations of error by brief to include issues not raised in the enumerations of error”); see also White v. State, 221 Ga. App. 860, 861 (1) ( 473 SE2d 539 ) (1996) (“ £[w]hen an appellant argues more than one error within a single enumeration, this court in its discretion may elect to review none of the errors so enumerated in violation of OCGA § 5-6-40 (cit.) or elect to review any one or more of the several assertions of error contained within the single enumera tion and treat the remain

1997See Brown v. State, 191 Ga. App. 76, 79 (4) ( 381 SE2d 101 ) (1989) (“[a]n appellant cannot expand his enumerations of error by brief to include issues not raised in the enumerations of error”); see also White v. State, 221 Ga. App. 860, 861 (1) ( 473 SE2d 539 ) (1996) (“ £[w]hen an appellant argues more than one error within a single enumeration, this court in its discretion may elect to review none of the errors so enumerated in violation of OCGA § 5-6-40 (cit.) or elect to review any one or more of the several assertions of error contained within the single enumera tion and treat the remain

1993He is obligated to bring them to the attention of his counsel in a timely manner for counsel’s consideration and incorporation in the enumerations of error and brief if counsel deems them worthy and appropriate.’ Coursey v. State, 196 Ga. App. 135, 137 (5) ( 395 SE2d 574 ).” Loden v. State, 199 Ga. App. 683, 691 (10) ( 406 SE2d 103 ).

1993He is obligated to bring them to the attention of his counsel in a timely manner for counsel’s consideration and incorporation in the enumerations of error and brief if counsel deems them worthy and appropriate.’ Coursey v. State, 196 Ga. App. 135, 137 (5) ( 395 SE2d 574 ).” Loden v. State, 199 Ga. App. 683, 691 (10) ( 406 SE2d 103 ).

1977The verdict having been rendered in favor of the appellant, the enumerations of error concerning the charge of the court are without merit. ". . . [I]t has long been the rule that when a verdict has been returned in favor of the plaintiff, errors in the giving of the charge, in omissions from the charge or in the refusal of requests which go to the matter of liability only are harmless to the plaintiff and afford no ground for reversal at his instance. [Cits.]” Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga. App. 151, 155 ( 193 SE2d 19 ).

1977The verdict having been rendered in favor of the appellant, the enumerations of error concerning the charge of the court are without merit. ". . . [I]t has long been the rule that when a verdict has been returned in favor of the plaintiff, errors in the giving of the charge, in omissions from the charge or in the refusal of requests which go to the matter of liability only are harmless to the plaintiff and afford no ground for reversal at his instance. [Cits.]” Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga. App. 151, 155 ( 193 SE2d 19 ).

1970"Whether or not Hill v. Willis, supra, as construed in Tiller Tiller v. State, supra, requires an affirmance here of any of the enumerations of error, we do not decide (see Bryan v. State, 224 Ga. 389, 390 ( 162 SE2d 349 ); Young v. State, 119 Ga. App. 34 [ 165 SE2d 869 ]), as the evidence was amply sufficient to authorize the verdict rendered and there was no exception to the charge of the court as required by Section 17 of the Appellate Practice Act as amended (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31; 1966, pp. 493, 498; 1968, pp. 1072, 1078; Code Ann. § 70-207 (a)).

1970"Whether or not Hill v. Willis, supra, as construed in Tiller Tiller v. State, supra, requires an affirmance here of any of the enumerations of error, we do not decide (see Bryan v. State, 224 Ga. 389, 390 ( 162 SE2d 349 ); Young v. State, 119 Ga. App. 34 [ 165 SE2d 869 ]), as the evidence was amply sufficient to authorize the verdict rendered and there was no exception to the charge of the court as required by Section 17 of the Appellate Practice Act as amended (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31; 1966, pp. 493, 498; 1968, pp. 1072, 1078; Code Ann. § 70-207 (a)).

2024Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to consider the enumerations of error raised. 2. (a) Appellant first claims that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979), but he is wrong.

2024Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to consider the enumerations of error raised. 2. (a) Appellant first claims that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979), but he is wrong.

1966Under the decision in Georgia Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 ( 149 SE2d 393 ), a general objection to the court’s charge was insufficient to present for review the questions raised by the enumerations of error.

1966Under the decision in Georgia Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 ( 149 SE2d 393 ), a general objection to the court’s charge was insufficient to present for review the questions raised by the enumerations of error.

2024“On appeal, a criminal defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and we review whether the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, enabled the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which [the defendant] was convicted.” Fitts v. State, 312 Ga. 134, 141 ( 859 SE2d 79 ) (2021).

2024“On appeal, a criminal defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and we review whether the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, enabled the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which [the defendant] was convicted.” Fitts v. State, 312 Ga. 134, 141 (859 18 SE2d 79 ) (2021).

2024Before being transmitted to the appellate court, the stipulation shall be approved by the trial judge or the presiding judge of the court where the case is pending.” See also Holmes v. Roberson-Holmes, 287 Ga. 358, 361 (1) (695 SE2d 586) (2010) (“Even where parties actually do agree on the facts and execute a ‘stipulation of the case’ with a sufficient statement of facts to enable an appellate court to pass upon the questions presented, that stipulation must have attached the approval of the trial judge, OCGA § 5-6-41 (i), before an appellate court would be authorized to use that stipulation t

2024Before being transmitted to the appellate court, the stipulation shall be approved by the trial judge or the presiding judge of the court where the case is pending.” See also Holmes v. Roberson-Holmes, 287 Ga. 358, 361 (1) (695 SE2d 586) (2010) (“Even where parties actually do agree on the facts and execute a ‘stipulation of the case’ with a sufficient statement of facts to enable an appellate court to pass upon the questions presented, that stipulation must have attached the approval of the trial judge, OCGA § 5-6-41 (i), before an appellate court would be authorized to use that stipulation t

2024See Ware v. State, 279 Ga. 17, 18 (2) (608 SE2d 643) (2005) (“When a portion of the evidence bearing upon the issues raised by the enumerations of error is not brought up in the appellate record so that this court can make its determination from a consideration of it all, an affirmance as to that issue must result.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 27 (c) In his final claim of ineffective assistance, Tedder contends that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to sufficiently cross-examine Eggleston regarding his initial untruthful statements to police, why he altered his account of

2024See Ware v. State, 279 Ga. 17, 18 (2) (608 SE2d 643) (2005) (“When a portion of the evidence bearing upon the issues raised by the enumerations of error is not brought up in the appellate record so that this court can make its determination from a consideration of it all, an affirmance as to that issue must result.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 27 (c) In his final claim of ineffective assistance, Tedder contends that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to sufficiently cross-examine Eggleston regarding his initial untruthful statements to police, why he altered his account of

2002See Security IV, 273 Ga. at 46 , 535 S.E.2d 234 ; Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 562 (1), 554 S.E.2d 465 (2001). (c) The Supreme Court's decision reopened the possibility that the remaining enumerations of error not addressed in Security I regarding fraud were not moot.

2002See Security IV, 273 Ga. at 46 , 535 S.E.2d 234 ; Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 562 (1), 554 S.E.2d 465 (2001). (c) The Supreme Court's decision reopened the possibility that the remaining enumerations of error not addressed in Security I regarding fraud were not moot.

2019See Hobbs v. State , 299 Ga. App. 521 , 524 (3), 682 S.E.2d 697 (2009) (declining to address the appellant's remaining enumerations of error because they did not raise issues that were likely to recur at a new trial); see also Beck v. State , 305 Ga. 383 (2), 825 S.E.2d 184 (2019) ("[B]ecause [the appellant's] remaining enumerations of error relate to issues that are not likely to recur in the event of a retrial, we do not address them at this time.").

2019See Hobbs v. State , 299 Ga. App. 521 , 524 (3), 682 S.E.2d 697 (2009) (declining to address the appellant's remaining enumerations of error because they did not raise issues that were likely to recur at a new trial); see also Beck v. State , 305 Ga. 383 (2), 825 S.E.2d 184 (2019) ("[B]ecause [the appellant's] remaining enumerations of error relate to issues that are not likely to recur in the event of a retrial, we do not address them at this time.").

2019See Kitchin v. Reidelberger , 311 Ga. App. 135 , 137 (4), 714 S.E.2d 361 (2011) ("An appealing party ... may not use its brief to expand its enumerations of error by arguing the incorrectness of a trial court ruling not mentioned in the enumerations of error.").

2019See Kitchin v. Reidelberger , 311 Ga. App. 135 , 137 (4), 714 S.E.2d 361 (2011) ("An appealing party ... may not use its brief to expand its enumerations of error by arguing the incorrectness of a trial court ruling not mentioned in the enumerations of error.").

2020See Stevens v. Wakefield, 163 Ga. App. 40 ( 292 SE2d 516 ) (1982) (“The issues submitted by the remaining enumerations of error which were rendered moot by our previous decision are reopened by the decision of the Supreme Court.”).

2020See Stevens v. Wakefield, 163 Ga. App. 40 ( 292 SE2d 516 ) (1982) (“The issues submitted by the remaining enumerations of error which were rendered moot by our previous decision are reopened by the decision of the Supreme Court.”).

1968For example, an examination of the records in this court discloses that the court considered enumerations of error in the following cases where the same questions were made in a motion for new trial included in the record, and no appeal was made from the denial of the motion: Dickerson v. Harvey, 221 Ga. 606 ( 146 SE2d 310 ); Roach v. State, 221 Ga. 783 ( 147 SE2d 299 ); Worley v. State, 222 Ga. 319 ( 149 SE2d 682 ).

1968For example, an examination of the records in this court discloses that the court considered enumerations of error in the following cases where the same questions were made in a motion for new trial included in the record, and no appeal was made from the denial of the motion: Dickerson v. Harvey, 221 Ga. 606 ( 146 SE2d 310 ); Roach v. State, 221 Ga. 783 ( 147 SE2d 299 ); Worley v. State, 222 Ga. 319 ( 149 SE2d 682 ).

1970Wall v. Rhodes, 112 Ga. App. 572 ( 145 SE2d 756 ); Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 ( 154 SE2d 710 ); Crider v. State of Ga., 115 Ga. App. 347 (1) ( 154 SE2d 743 ); Bode v. Northeast Realty Co., 117 Ga. App. 226 ( 160 SE2d 228 ); Brickle v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 117 Ga. App. 557 ( 161 SE2d 424 ); Coley v. Smith, 117 Ga. App. 822 ( 162 SE2d 216 ); Allen v. Carter, 119 Ga. App. 825 ( 168 SE2d 901 ). 3.

1970Wall v. Rhodes, 112 Ga. App. 572 ( 145 SE2d 756 ); Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 ( 154 SE2d 710 ); Crider v. State of Ga., 115 Ga. App. 347 (1) ( 154 SE2d 743 ); Bode v. Northeast Realty Co., 117 Ga. App. 226 ( 160 SE2d 228 ); Brickle v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 117 Ga. App. 557 ( 161 SE2d 424 ); Coley v. Smith, 117 Ga. App. 822 ( 162 SE2d 216 ); Allen v. Carter, 119 Ga. App. 825 ( 168 SE2d 901 ). 3.