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.
9 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1985–1997 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carroll v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Carroll v. State, 261 Ga. 553, 554 (1) ( 408 SE2d 412 ) (1991). *483 OCGA § 24-3-5 also provides an exception to the rule against hearsay: “After the fact of conspiracy is proved, the declarations by any one of the conspirators during the pendency of the criminal project shall be admissible against all.” A prima facie case of the conspiracy to burn Cromwell’s car had been made at the time the tape recording was introduced. 1994When these conditions are satisfied, the prior consistent out-of-court statement of the witness is admissible. [Cits.]" Carroll v. State, 261 Ga. 553, 554 (1) ( 408 SE2d 412 ). | 2 | 2 |
Edwards v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See also Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149, 150-151 (2) ( 335 SE2d 869 ) (1985); Gregg v. State, 201 Ga. App. 238, 239 (1) ( 411 SE2d 65 ) (1991). 1993See also Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149, 150-151 (2) ( 335 SE2d 869 ) (1985); Gregg v. State, 201 Ga. App. 238, 239 (1) ( 411 SE2d 65 ) (1991). | 2 | 2 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Sanders v. State, 182 Ga. App. 581, 585 (5), 356 S.E.2d 537 (1987); see also White v. State, 213 Ga.App. 429 , 445 S.E.2d 309 (1994). 1997Sanders v. State, 182 Ga. App. 581, 585 (5), 356 S.E.2d 537 (1987); see also White v. State, 213 Ga.App. 429 , 445 S.E.2d 309 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Sanders v. State, 182 Ga. App. 581, 585 (5), 356 S.E.2d 537 (1987); see also White v. State, 213 Ga.App. 429 , 445 S.E.2d 309 (1994). 1997Sanders v. State, 182 Ga. App. 581, 585 (5), 356 S.E.2d 537 (1987); see also White v. State, 213 Ga.App. 429 , 445 S.E.2d 309 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Gregg v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See also Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149, 150-151 (2) ( 335 SE2d 869 ) (1985); Gregg v. State, 201 Ga. App. 238, 239 (1) ( 411 SE2d 65 ) (1991). 1993See also Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149, 150-151 (2) ( 335 SE2d 869 ) (1985); Gregg v. State, 201 Ga. App. 238, 239 (1) ( 411 SE2d 65 ) (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Gibbons v. Stategreen2 sentences1988Gibbons v. State, 248 Ga. 858, 862 ( 286 SE2d 717 ) (1982); Cuzzort, supra. Hence there was no error in allowing Casper’s testimony as to what Wade told him, and such testimony was admissible as substantive evidence. 1988Gibbons v. State, 248 Ga. 858, 862 ( 286 SE2d 717 ) (1982); Cuzzort, supra. Hence there was no error in allowing Casper’s testimony as to what Wade told him, and such testimony was admissible as substantive evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cuzzort v. State
green
2 sentences1995The concerns of the rule against hearsay were satisfied, and the recording was therefore admissible as a prior consistent statement under Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 ( 334 SE2d 661 ) (1985). 1995The concerns of the rule against hearsay were satisfied, and the recording was therefore admissible as a prior consistent statement under Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 ( 334 SE2d 661 ) (1985). | 7 | 1985–1995 |
Reynolds v. State
green
2 sentences1991Following Cuzzort , the Child Hearsay Statute, OCGA § 24-3-16, was enacted: “A statement made by a child under the age of 14 years describing any act of sexual contact or physical abuse performed with or on the child by another is admissible in evidence by the testimony of the person or persons to whom made if the child is available to testify in the proceedings and the court finds that the circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability.” In Reynolds v. State, 257 Ga. 725 (1) ( 363 SE2d 249 ) (1988), other witnesses testified to out-of-court statements by a child-mole 1991Following Cuzzort , the Child Hearsay Statute, OCGA § 24-3-16, was enacted: “A statement made by a child under the age of 14 years describing any act of sexual contact or physical abuse performed with or on the child by another is admissible in evidence by the testimony of the person or persons to whom made if the child is available to testify in the proceedings and the court finds that the circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability.” In Reynolds v. State, 257 Ga. 725 (1) ( 363 SE2d 249 ) (1988), other witnesses testified to out-of-court statements by a child-mole | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Brannon v. State
green
2 sentences1987Brannon v. State, 176 Ga. App. 781 (1) ( 337 SE2d 782 ) (1985); Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 ( 334 SE2d 661 ) (1985); Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149, 151 (2) ( 335 SE2d 869 ) (1985). 1987Brannon v. State, 176 Ga. App. 781 (1) ( 337 SE2d 782 ) (1985); Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 ( 334 SE2d 661 ) (1985); Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149, 151 (2) ( 335 SE2d 869 ) (1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.