9 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2026OCGA § 24-6-615, commonly referred to as the rule of sequestration, provides for the exclusion, upon request or upon the court’s own motion, of most witnesses “so that each witness cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses,” but “[t]his Code section shall not authorize the exclusion of: … [a] person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.” “The trial judge is vested with broad discretionary powers in administering the rule of sequestration, which will not be controlled unless manifestly abused.” Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 853, 857 (2004). 2026OCGA § 24-6-615, commonly referred to as the rule of sequestration, provides for the exclusion, upon request or upon the court’s own motion, of most witnesses “so that each witness cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses,” but “[t]his Code section shall not authorize the exclusion of: … [a] person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.” “The trial judge is vested with broad discretionary powers in administering the rule of sequestration, which will not be controlled unless manifestly abused.” Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 853, 857 (2004). | 2 | 2 |
Abney v. Stategreen1 sentence2019He did not testify that he believed A. D. was telling the truth and specifically couched his investigation in terms of “everything that allegedly happened.” This testimony does not constitute improper bolstering.9 See Abney v. State, 306 Ga. 448, 455 (3) (b) ( 831 SE2d 778 ) (2019) (where detective did not speak directly to witness’s truthfulness but was instead responding to questions about the manner in which he conducted his investigation, no improper bolstering). | 1 | 1 |
Moon v. Stategreen2 sentences2011The State argues that the prior statements were properly admitted because Johnson's credibility had been attacked. "`"(A) witness's veracity is placed in issue so as to permit the introduction of a prior consistent statement only if affirmative charges of recent fabrication, improper influence, or improper motive are raised during cross-examination." (Cits.)' [Cit.]" Moon v. State, 288 Ga. 508, 511 (4), 705 S.E.2d 649 (2011). 2011The State argues that the prior statements were properly admitted because Johnson's credibility had been attacked. "`"(A) witness's veracity is placed in issue so as to permit the introduction of a prior consistent statement only if affirmative charges of recent fabrication, improper influence, or improper motive are raised during cross-examination." (Cits.)' [Cit.]" Moon v. State, 288 Ga. 508, 511 (4), 705 S.E.2d 649 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Davison v. Stategreen2 sentences2004On appeal, “a *271 trial court’s determination that evidence is admissible as part of the res gestae will not be disturbed unless that finding is clearly erroneous.” (Punctuation omitted.) Davison v. State, 241 Ga. App. 685, 687 (3) ( 527 SE2d 285 ) (1999), citing Copeland v. State, 235 Ga. App. 682, 684 (2) (a) ( 510 SE2d 124 ) (1998). 2004On appeal, “a *271 trial court’s determination that evidence is admissible as part of the res gestae will not be disturbed unless that finding is clearly erroneous.” (Punctuation omitted.) Davison v. State, 241 Ga. App. 685, 687 (3) ( 527 SE2d 285 ) (1999), citing Copeland v. State, 235 Ga. App. 682, 684 (2) (a) ( 510 SE2d 124 ) (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Copeland v. Stategreen2 sentences2004On appeal, “a *271 trial court’s determination that evidence is admissible as part of the res gestae will not be disturbed unless that finding is clearly erroneous.” (Punctuation omitted.) Davison v. State, 241 Ga. App. 685, 687 (3) ( 527 SE2d 285 ) (1999), citing Copeland v. State, 235 Ga. App. 682, 684 (2) (a) ( 510 SE2d 124 ) (1998). 2004On appeal, “a *271 trial court’s determination that evidence is admissible as part of the res gestae will not be disturbed unless that finding is clearly erroneous.” (Punctuation omitted.) Davison v. State, 241 Ga. App. 685, 687 (3) ( 527 SE2d 285 ) (1999), citing Copeland v. State, 235 Ga. App. 682, 684 (2) (a) ( 510 SE2d 124 ) (1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abney v. State
green
1 sentence2019He did not testify that he believed A. D. was telling the truth and specifically couched his investigation in terms of “everything that allegedly happened.” This testimony does not constitute improper bolstering.9 See Abney v. State, 306 Ga. 448, 455 (3) (b) ( 831 SE2d 778 ) (2019) (where detective did not speak directly to witness’s truthfulness but was instead responding to questions about the manner in which he conducted his investigation, no improper bolstering). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Waldrip v. State
green
1 sentence1999Waldrip v. State, 267 Ga. at 748 (12) ( 482 SE2d 299 ). 3. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hughey v. State
green
2 sentences1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Stanley v. State
green
2 sentences1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ogles v. State
green
2 sentences1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Lingerfelt v. State
green
1 sentence1989In Lingerfelt v. State, 147 Ga., App. 371 ( 249 SE2d 100 ) (1978), the defendant was accused of sexual offenses. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences1989This was inherently prejudicial and deprived the appellant of his right to begin his trial with a jury ‘free from even a suspicion of prejudgment. . .’ ” In Moore v. State, 156 Ga. App. 92 ( 274 SE2d 107 ) (1980), in which the defendant was charged with first-degree arson, a prospective juror volunteered, in the presence of other prospective jurors: “ ‘He was a volunteer (fireman). 1989This was inherently prejudicial and deprived the appellant of his right to begin his trial with a jury ‘free from even a suspicion of prejudgment. . .’ ” In Moore v. State, 156 Ga. App. 92 ( 274 SE2d 107 ) (1980), in which the defendant was charged with first-degree arson, a prospective juror volunteered, in the presence of other prospective jurors: “ ‘He was a volunteer (fireman). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Knight v. State
green
2 sentences1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Weldon v. State
green
2 sentences1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 1989According to the transcript, the trial court overruled the challenge to the array and the motion for mistrial and promised to instruct the jury that “information elicited on voir dire is not evidence and will not be considered ... in the case.” In Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375 ( 348 SE2d 901 ) (1986), this court reviewed at length, at 377-378, cases in which “disparaging and improper remarks have been made before the jury about the defendant which involved the discretion of the trial court in aborting the trial:” e.g., Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3 ( 295 SE2d 315 ) (1982); Knight v. State, 2 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
1 sentence1981Appellant’s sole enumeration of error is that under the standard set forth in Brown v. Illinois, supra, her confession should have been suppressed. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Bennett v. State
neutral
2 sentences1951This point has been ruled adversely to the defendant in Bennett v. State, 67 Ga. App. 384 ( 20 S. E. 2d, 193 ). 1951This point has been ruled adversely to the defendant in Bennett v. State, 67 Ga. App. 384 ( 20 S. E. 2d, 193 ). | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.