clear or obvious error in Georgia

2026See Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 327 (3) ( 781 SE2d 772 ) (2016) (“[B]eyond showing a clear or obvious error, plain-error analysis requires the appellant to make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.”) (quotation marks omitted). 3.

2026See Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 327 (3) ( 781 SE2d 772 ) (2016) (“[B]eyond showing a clear or obvious error, plain-error analysis requires the appellant to make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.”) (quotation marks omitted). 3.

2026State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 33 (2011).

2011As the court gave the above charges, the omission of additional language concerning proximate cause cannot be considered a clear or obvious error, see Kelly, supra at 34 (2) (b), and the second prong of the plain error test cannot be met.

2017“Beyond showing a clear or obvious error, plain-error analysis requires the appellant to make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 299 Ga. 40, 42-43 (2) ( 785 SE2d 886 ) (2016).

2017“Beyond showing a clear or obvious error, plain-error analysis requires the appellant to make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 299 Ga. 40, 42-43 (2) ( 785 SE2d 886 ) (2016).

2023See Hawkins v. State, 304 Ga. 299, 303 (3) (818 SE2d 513) (2018) (noting that even though the failure to charge on accomplice corroboration was a clear or obvious error, it was not plain error because the accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by “significant and consistent evidence” through the appellant’s own admission, eyewitness accounts, and security camera footage); Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312, 318-319 (2) (800 SE2d 333) (2017) (concluding that the failure to instruct on accomplice corroboration was harmless because multiple non- accomplice sources linked the defendant to the crime).

2023See Hawkins v. State, 304 Ga. 299, 303 (3) (818 SE2d 513) (2018) (noting that even though the failure to charge on accomplice corroboration was a clear or obvious error, it was not plain error because the accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by “significant and consistent evidence” through the appellant’s own admission, eyewitness accounts, and security camera footage); Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312, 318-319 (2) (800 SE2d 333) (2017) (concluding that the failure to instruct on accomplice corroboration was harmless because multiple non- accomplice sources linked the defendant to the crime).

2021Thus, beyond showing a clear or obvious error, “plain-error analysis . . . requires the appellant to make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Shaw v. State, 292 Ga. 871, 873 (2) (742 SE2d 707) (2013).

2021Thus, beyond showing a clear or obvious error, “plain-error analysis . . . requires the appellant to make an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Shaw v. State, 292 Ga. 871, 873 (2) (742 SE2d 707) (2013).

2026See Wood, 320 Ga. at 471 ; Sconyers v. State, 318 Ga. 855, 859 (2024) (“For an error to be obvious for purposes of plain error review, it must be plain under controlling precedent or in view of the unequivocally clear words of a statute or rule.” (cleaned up)).

2024See Sconyers v. State, 318 Ga. 855, 859 (1) (901 SE2d 170) (2024) (“For an error to be obvious for pur- poses of plain error review, it must be plain under controlling prec- edent or in view of the unequivocally clear words of a statute or rule.” (quoting Grier v. State, 313 Ga. 236, 242 (3) (b) (869 SE2d 423) (2022))).

2023See Hawkins v. State, 304 Ga. 299, 303 (3) (818 SE2d 513) (2018) (noting that even though the failure to charge on accomplice corroboration was a clear or obvious error, it was not plain error because the accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by “significant and consistent evidence” through the appellant’s own admission, eyewitness accounts, and security camera footage); Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312, 318-319 (2) (800 SE2d 333) (2017) (concluding that the failure to instruct on accomplice corroboration was harmless because multiple non- accomplice sources linked the defendant to the crime).

2023See Hawkins v. State, 304 Ga. 299, 303 (3) (818 SE2d 513) (2018) (noting that even though the failure to charge on accomplice corroboration was a clear or obvious error, it was not plain error because the accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by “significant and consistent evidence” through the appellant’s own admission, eyewitness accounts, and security camera footage); Lyman v. State, 301 Ga. 312, 318-319 (2) (800 SE2d 333) (2017) (concluding that the failure to instruct on accomplice corroboration was harmless because multiple non- accomplice sources linked the defendant to the crime).

2025Grier v. State, 313 Ga. 236, 242 (3) (b) ( 869 SE2d 423 ) (2022).

2025Grier v. State, 313 Ga. 236, 242 (3) (b) ( 869 SE2d 423 ) (2022).

2024(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 315 Ga. 357, 362 (3) ( 882 SE2d 289 ) (2022).1 Thomas contends that there was slight evidence to support a jury charge regarding the victim’s ability to perceive the events due to her drinking and medication use.

2024(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 315 Ga. 357, 362 (3) ( 882 SE2d 289 ) (2022).1 Thomas contends that there was slight evidence to support a jury charge regarding the victim’s ability to perceive the events due to her drinking and medication use.

2017Further, “[j]ury instructions are read and considered as a whole in determining whether there is error [Cit.],” White v. State, 281 Ga. 276, 280 (4) ( 637 SE2d 645 ) (2006), and the jury was instructed on reasonable doubt, participation in a crime, “mere presence” at the scene of a crime, and that “grave suspicion” does not authorize a conviction.

2017Further, “[j]ury instructions are read and considered as a whole in determining whether there is error [Cit.],” White v. State, 281 Ga. 276, 280 (4) ( 637 SE2d 645 ) (2006), and the jury was instructed on reasonable doubt, participation in a crime, “mere presence” at the scene of a crime, and that “grave suspicion” does not authorize a conviction.

2023See Blackwell v. State, 302 Ga. 820, 823 (2) (809 SE2d 727) (2018) (“The appellant has the burden of showing a clear or obvious error and further making an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.”).

2023See Blackwell v. State, 302 Ga. 820, 823 (2) (809 SE2d 727) (2018) (“The appellant has the burden of showing a clear or obvious error and further making an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.”).

2025“Under plain error review, we can reverse only if the trial court made a clear or obvious error that was not affirmatively waived, likely affected the outcome of the proceedings, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Behl v. State, 315 Ga. 814 , 815–16 (2023). 6 Woschula’s claim of plain error fails.

2023“Under plain error review, we can reverse only if the trial court made a clear or obvious error that was not affirmatively waived, likely affected the outcome of the proceedings, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Behl, 315 Ga. at 815-816 (1).

2020(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Wilson v. State, 301 Ga. 83, 88 (2) ( 799 SE2d 757 ) (2017).

2020(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Wilson v. State, 301 Ga. 83, 88 (2) ( 799 SE2d 757 ) (2017).

2019The Court of Appeals concluded that Adams could not demonstrate a clear or obvious error due to its earlier decision in Flading v. State , 327 Ga. App. 346 , 759 S.E.2d 67 (2014), which held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence at a DUI trial a written stipulation in an administrative license suspension proceeding.

2019The Court of Appeals concluded that Adams could not demonstrate a clear or obvious error due to its earlier decision in Flading v. State , 327 Ga. App. 346 , 759 S.E.2d 67 (2014), which held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence at a DUI trial a written stipulation in an administrative license suspension proceeding.

2018Booth v. State , 301 Ga. 678 , 680 (2), 804 S.E.2d 104 (2017).

2018Booth v. State , 301 Ga. 678 , 680 (2), 804 S.E.2d 104 (2017).

2026The instructions, in essence, accurately reflected the holding of Wierson, and under Gravitt, Lett cannot demonstrate a clear or obvious error in the jury charges.12 See Gravitt, 322 Ga. at 842–48(3)(d) (trial court’s 11 See Austin v. State, 275 Ga. 346, 347 (2) ( 566 SE2d 673 ) (2002) (subsequent change in the law regarding jury instructions after the defendant’s convictions applied in the defendant’s direct appeal proceedings). 12 To the extent that Lett relies on the prosecutor’s alleged misstatement of the law in support of her claim, as explained above, the instructions as a whole charged

2026The instructions, in essence, accurately reflected the holding of Wierson, and under Gravitt, Lett cannot demonstrate a clear or obvious error in the jury charges.12 See Gravitt, 322 Ga. at 842–48(3)(d) (trial court’s 11 See Austin v. State, 275 Ga. 346, 347 (2) ( 566 SE2d 673 ) (2002) (subsequent change in the law regarding jury instructions after the defendant’s convictions applied in the defendant’s direct appeal proceedings). 12 To the extent that Lett relies on the prosecutor’s alleged misstatement of the law in support of her claim, as explained above, the instructions as a whole charged

2026See also Johnson v. State, 321 Ga. 511, 520 (2025) (concluding that, even if “the trial court made a clear or obvious error by failing to charge” the jury on the State’s burden of proof, the appellant failed to demonstrate plain error because he failed to show that “any such error probably affected the outcome of the trial”).

2026“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, but a defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is subject to reasonable restrictions.” Wood, 320 Ga. at 471 (quotation marks omitted).

2026See Wood, 320 Ga. at 471 ; Sconyers v. State, 318 Ga. 855, 859 (2024) (“For an error to be obvious for purposes of plain error review, it must be plain under controlling precedent or in view of the unequivocally clear words of a statute or rule.” (cleaned up)).

2025See Garner v. State, 303 Ga. 788, 790-91 (2) (815 SE2d 36) (2018) (where defendant pointed to no evidence that supported a reasonable belief that shooting the victim was necessary to defend himself or his girlfriend from any imminent use of unlawful force, that he was in fear of suffering harm during the encounter with the victim, or that the victim was reaching for a weapon, there was “not even slight evidence to support an instruction on self-defense[,]” so the trial court did not err in refusing to charge on that issue). 4.

2025See Garner v. State, 303 Ga. 788, 790-91 (2) ( 815 SE2d 36 ) (2018) (where defendant pointed to no evidence that supported a reasonable belief that shooting the victim was necessary to defend himself or his girlfriend from any imminent use of unlawful force, that he was in fear of suffering harm during the encounter with the victim, or that the victim was reaching for a weapon, there was “not even slight evidence to support an instruction on self-defense[,]” so the trial court did not err in refusing to charge on that issue). 4.

2025See Garner v. State, 303 Ga. 788, 790-91 (2) (815 SE2d 36) (2018) (where defendant pointed to no evidence that supported a reasonable belief that shooting the victim was necessary to defend himself or his girlfriend from any imminent use of unlawful force, that he was in fear of suffering harm during the encounter with the victim, or that the victim was reaching for a weapon, there was “not even slight evidence to support an instruction on self-defense[,]” so the trial court did not err in refusing to charge on that issue). 4.

2025See Garner v. State, 303 Ga. 788, 790-91 (2) ( 815 SE2d 36 ) (2018) (where defendant pointed to no evidence that supported a reasonable belief that shooting the victim was necessary to defend himself or his girlfriend from any imminent use of unlawful force, that he was in fear of suffering harm during the encounter with the victim, or that the victim was reaching for a weapon, there was “not even slight evidence to support an instruction on self-defense[,]” so the trial court did not err in refusing to charge on that issue). 4.

2025See Davenport v. State, 309 Ga. 385, 396 (2020) (“We cannot now identify a compelling reason to retain our current practice of sua sponte review of the sufficiency of the evidence in cases in which the appellant is not sentenced to death, and there are good reasons to abandon that practice.” (emphasis omitted)).

2025And even assuming the trial court made a clear or obvious error by failing to charge that the State was required to prove the victim’s death was a “reasonably foreseeable” result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, see Melancon, 319 Ga. at 751 (2) (b), a question we do not decide,7 Johnson has not made an affirmative showing that 7 See Holloway v. State, 320 Ga. 653, 662 (4) & n.4 ( 911 SE2d 543 ) (2025) (pretermitting whether failure to instruct on proximate cause as to felony murder was clear and obvious error in case involving an instruction about proving causation as to felony murder simi

2025And even assuming the trial court made a clear or obvious error by failing to charge that the State was required to prove the victim’s death was a “reasonably foreseeable” result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, see Melancon, 319 Ga. at 751 (2) (b), a question we do not decide,7 Johnson has not made an affirmative showing that 7 See Holloway v. State, 320 Ga. 653, 662 (4) & n.4 ( 911 SE2d 543 ) (2025) (pretermitting whether failure to instruct on proximate cause as to felony murder was clear and obvious error in case involving an instruction about proving causation as to felony murder simi

2025See Carter v. State, 317 Ga. 389 , 394-395 (2) ( 895 SE2d 295 ) (2023) (admission of evidence was not a “clear and obvious [error] beyond reasonable dispute” because there was a “reasonable argument” based on the record that the evidence was admissible).

2025“The appellant has the burden of showing a clear or obvious error and further making an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.” DeMuro v. State, 317 Ga. 155, 163 (2) ( 892 SE2d 31 ) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2025“The appellant has the burden of showing a clear or obvious error and further making an affirmative showing that the error probably did affect the outcome below.” DeMuro v. State, 317 Ga. 155, 163 (2) ( 892 SE2d 31 ) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted).