clear or obvious legal error in Georgia

2025A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings. 3 Osborne acknowledges that his failure to object below requires review for plain error. 6 Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1, 2 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2025A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings. 3 Osborne acknowledges that his failure to object below requires review for plain error. 6 Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1, 2 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2021No reasonable jury would have understood the court’s instructions, taken as a whole, as intimating that the jury should reach a particular verdict or that the prosecution was relieved of its burden of proof, and Bell has therefore failed to show error in the trial court’s instructions to the jury.8 See Picklesimer v. State, 353 Ga. App. 718 , 726 (5) ( 839 SE2d 214 ) (2020) (“When a jury charge is a correct statement of law, a defendant cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.

2020“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. “[P]arties should be advised that the hurdle to establishing plain error is high, . . . and therefore that the failure to specifically articulate how the alleged error satisfies this high standard increases the likelihood that their claims in this regard will be rejected.” State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (1), n. 2 ( 71

2020“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. “[P]arties should be advised that the hurdle to establishing plain error is high, . . . and therefore that the failure to specifically articulate how the alleged error satisfies this high standard increases the likelihood that their claims in this regard will be rejected.” State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (1), n. 2 ( 71

2020Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error[.]” (Citation omitted.) Pye, 322 Ga. App. at 129 (2). 6.

2016See Bradford v. State, 299 Ga. 880, 885 (6) (b) ( 792 SE2d 684 ) (2016).

2016See Bradford v. State, 299 Ga. 880, 885 (6) (b) ( 792 SE2d 684 ) (2016).

2015S., 273 Ga. App. 576, 577 ( 615 SE2d 627 ) (2005) (holding that officer’s testimony that defendant was traveling faster than the 65 miles per hour speed limit was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction on a speeding violation). 5 of evidence for plain error.10 That being said, a finding of plain error requires “a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.”11 Reviewing Lafavor’s claim in this regard, OCGA § 40-14-17 provides that [

2015S., 273 Ga. App. 576, 577 ( 615 SE2d 627 ) (2005) (holding that officer’s testimony that defendant was traveling faster than the 65 miles per hour speed limit was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction on a speeding violation). 5 of evidence for plain error.10 That being said, a finding of plain error requires “a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.”11 Reviewing Lafavor’s claim in this regard, OCGA § 40-14-17 provides that [

2014“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Taylor v. State, 327 Ga. App. 882, 890 (8) ( 761 SE2d 426 ) (2014).

2014“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Taylor v. State, 327 Ga. App. 882, 890 (8) ( 761 SE2d 426 ) (2014).

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows.

2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows.

2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows.

2013In charging the jury on the crime of rape, the trial court provided the statutory definition 12 Arrington v. Collins, 290 Ga. 603, 607 (2) ( 724 SE2d 372 ) (2012) (citation omitted). 13 Corbin v. State, 305 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 700 SE2d 868 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 14 Pullins v. State, 232 Ga. App. 267 (1) (a) ( 501 SE2d 612 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). 8 of the crime and stated, “The State must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court further pertinently charged as follows.

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2013Therefore, [Pye] cannot satisfy the first two prongs of the plain error test — that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.” 10 Thus, we find no error, much less any plain error pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-58 (b).11 8 Coleman v. State, 317 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) ( 731 SE2d 94 ) (2012) (footnote and emphasis omitted). 9 Strozier, supra at 437 (2) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 10 Coleman, supra at 411 (1); see generally Freeman v. State, 269 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) ( 604 SE2d 280 ) (2004) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a trial court’s jury instruction that a victim’s testimony need not be

2012(Emphasis supplied.) The principle contained in the charge is a correct statement of the legal standard required to prove chain of custody.6 Therefore, Coleman cannot satisfy 4 (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 33 (2) (a). 5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kelly, supra. 6 Hurst v. State, 285 Ga. 294, 296 (2) ( 676 SE2d 165 ) (2009); Anderson v. State, 247 Ga. 397, 399 (2) ( 276 SE2d 603 ) (1981); Morrow v. State, 229 Ga. App. 242, 244 (2) ( 493 SE2d 616 ) (1997). 4 the first two prongs of the plain error test - that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.

2012(Emphasis supplied.) The principle contained in the charge is a correct statement of the legal standard required to prove chain of custody.6 Therefore, Coleman cannot satisfy 4 (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 33 (2) (a). 5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kelly, supra. 6 Hurst v. State, 285 Ga. 294, 296 (2) ( 676 SE2d 165 ) (2009); Anderson v. State, 247 Ga. 397, 399 (2) ( 276 SE2d 603 ) (1981); Morrow v. State, 229 Ga. App. 242, 244 (2) ( 493 SE2d 616 ) (1997). 4 the first two prongs of the plain error test - that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.

2012(Emphasis supplied.) The principle contained in the charge is a correct statement of the legal standard required to prove chain of custody.6 Therefore, Coleman cannot satisfy 4 (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 33 (2) (a). 5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kelly, supra. 6 Hurst v. State, 285 Ga. 294, 296 (2) ( 676 SE2d 165 ) (2009); Anderson v. State, 247 Ga. 397, 399 (2) ( 276 SE2d 603 ) (1981); Morrow v. State, 229 Ga. App. 242, 244 (2) ( 493 SE2d 616 ) (1997). 4 the first two prongs of the plain error test - that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.

2012(Emphasis supplied.) The principle contained in the charge is a correct statement of the legal standard required to prove chain of custody.6 Therefore, Coleman cannot satisfy 4 (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 33 (2) (a). 5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kelly, supra. 6 Hurst v. State, 285 Ga. 294, 296 (2) ( 676 SE2d 165 ) (2009); Anderson v. State, 247 Ga. 397, 399 (2) ( 276 SE2d 603 ) (1981); Morrow v. State, 229 Ga. App. 242, 244 (2) ( 493 SE2d 616 ) (1997). 4 the first two prongs of the plain error test - that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.

2012(Emphasis supplied.) The principle contained in the charge is a correct statement of the legal standard required to prove chain of custody.6 Therefore, Coleman cannot satisfy 4 (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 33 (2) (a). 5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kelly, supra. 6 Hurst v. State, 285 Ga. 294, 296 (2) ( 676 SE2d 165 ) (2009); Anderson v. State, 247 Ga. 397, 399 (2) ( 276 SE2d 603 ) (1981); Morrow v. State, 229 Ga. App. 242, 244 (2) ( 493 SE2d 616 ) (1997). 4 the first two prongs of the plain error test - that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.

2012(Emphasis supplied.) The principle contained in the charge is a correct statement of the legal standard required to prove chain of custody.6 Therefore, Coleman cannot satisfy 4 (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 33 (2) (a). 5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kelly, supra. 6 Hurst v. State, 285 Ga. 294, 296 (2) ( 676 SE2d 165 ) (2009); Anderson v. State, 247 Ga. 397, 399 (2) ( 276 SE2d 603 ) (1981); Morrow v. State, 229 Ga. App. 242, 244 (2) ( 493 SE2d 616 ) (1997). 4 the first two prongs of the plain error test - that a clear or obvious legal error occurred.