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 2 courts 1977–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2024This information may be developed by questions from the judge, the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney or a combination of any of these. 63 SE2d 414) (2013); Phelps v. State, 293 Ga. 873, 878 (II) (b) n.5 (750 SE2d 340) (2013); Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 394 (2) (a) (697 SE2d 177) (2010); Adams v. State, 285 Ga. 744, 746-747 (3) (683 SE2d 586) (2009). 2024This information may be developed by questions from the judge, the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney or a combination of any of these. 63 SE2d 414) (2013); Phelps v. State, 293 Ga. 873, 878 (II) (b) n.5 (750 SE2d 340) (2013); Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 394 (2) (a) (697 SE2d 177) (2010); Adams v. State, 285 Ga. 744, 746-747 (3) (683 SE2d 586) (2009). | 2 | 3 |
Phelps v. Stategreen2 sentences2024This information may be developed by questions from the judge, the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney or a combination of any of these. 63 SE2d 414) (2013); Phelps v. State, 293 Ga. 873, 878 (II) (b) n.5 (750 SE2d 340) (2013); Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 394 (2) (a) (697 SE2d 177) (2010); Adams v. State, 285 Ga. 744, 746-747 (3) (683 SE2d 586) (2009). 2024This information may be developed by questions from the judge, the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney or a combination of any of these. 63 SE2d 414) (2013); Phelps v. State, 293 Ga. 873, 878 (II) (b) n.5 (750 SE2d 340) (2013); Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 394 (2) (a) (697 SE2d 177) (2010); Adams v. State, 285 Ga. 744, 746-747 (3) (683 SE2d 586) (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences2024This information may be developed by questions from the judge, the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney or a combination of any of these. 63 SE2d 414) (2013); Phelps v. State, 293 Ga. 873, 878 (II) (b) n.5 (750 SE2d 340) (2013); Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 394 (2) (a) (697 SE2d 177) (2010); Adams v. State, 285 Ga. 744, 746-747 (3) (683 SE2d 586) (2009). 2024This information may be developed by questions from the judge, the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney or a combination of any of these. 63 SE2d 414) (2013); Phelps v. State, 293 Ga. 873, 878 (II) (b) n.5 (750 SE2d 340) (2013); Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 394 (2) (a) (697 SE2d 177) (2010); Adams v. State, 285 Ga. 744, 746-747 (3) (683 SE2d 586) (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Boykin v. Alabamagreen2 sentences2024When a trial court follows these procedures, thereby “can- vassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full un- derstanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence,” the court “leaves a record adequate for any review that may be later sought.” Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244 . 2024When a trial court follows these procedures, thereby “can- vassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full un- derstanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence,” the court “leaves a record adequate for any review that may be later sought.” Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244. | 1 | 1 |
Boccia v. the Stategreen2 sentences2024The judge may then indicate to the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel whether the judge will likely concur in the proposed disposition if the information developed in the plea hearing or presented in the presentence report is consistent with the representations made by the parties.” See also Boccia v. State, 335 Ga. App. 687, 697 (4) ( 782 SE2d 792 ) (2016) (“A trial court is not authorized to participate in plea negotiations except to the extent of indicating whether the court is or is not likely to agree with the proposed disposition.”) (punctuation omitted). 11 3. 2024The judge may then indicate to the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel whether the judge will likely concur in the proposed disposition if the information developed in the plea hearing or presented in the presentence report is consistent with the representations made by the parties.” See also Boccia v. State, 335 Ga. App. 687, 697 (4) ( 782 SE2d 792 ) (2016) (“A trial court is not authorized to participate in plea negotiations except to the extent of indicating whether the court is or is not likely to agree with the proposed disposition.”) (punctuation omitted). 11 3. | 1 | 1 |
Rickman v. Stategreen2 sentences2007While the Court of Appeals overruled Tilley in Pitmon seven months after appellant’s trial, “in making litigation decisions, there is no general duty on the *782 part of defense counsel to anticipate changes in the law.” Rickman v. State, 277 Ga. 277, 280 ( 587 SE2d 596 ) (2003). 2007While the Court of Appeals overruled Tilley in Pitmon seven months after appellant’s trial, “in making litigation decisions, there is no general duty on the *782 part of defense counsel to anticipate changes in the law.” Rickman v. State, 277 Ga. 277, 280 ( 587 SE2d 596 ) (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Todd v. Stategreen2 sentences2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with 2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with | 1 | 1 |
Al-Amin v. Stategreen2 sentences2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with 2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with | 1 | 1 |
Griffin v. Californiagreen1 sentence2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with 2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with | 1 | 1 |
LeMay v. Stategreen2 sentences2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with 2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with | 1 | 1 |
Bacon v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Bacon, 201 Ga. App. at 640 (1) (b). | 1 | 1 |
Hicks v. Stategreen2 sentences1977Our appellate courts have assigned various reasons for the amendment providing for the exclusion of a witness’ testimony who is not on the list provided a defendant — even though he is not "a witness on whose testimony the charge against [the defendant] is founded,” unless the prosecuting attorney can claim he is *251 "newly-discovered.” See Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 399 ( 207 SE2d 30 ); McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 376 ( 211 SE2d 577 ); Upton v. State, 128 Ga. App. 547, 548 (3) ( 197 SE2d 478 ). 1977Our appellate courts have assigned various reasons for the amendment providing for the exclusion of a witness’ testimony who is not on the list provided a defendant — even though he is not "a witness on whose testimony the charge against [the defendant] is founded,” unless the prosecuting attorney can claim he is *251 "newly-discovered.” See Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 399 ( 207 SE2d 30 ); McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 376 ( 211 SE2d 577 ); Upton v. State, 128 Ga. App. 547, 548 (3) ( 197 SE2d 478 ). | 1 | 1 |
Upton v. Stategreen2 sentences1977Our appellate courts have assigned various reasons for the amendment providing for the exclusion of a witness’ testimony who is not on the list provided a defendant — even though he is not "a witness on whose testimony the charge against [the defendant] is founded,” unless the prosecuting attorney can claim he is *251 "newly-discovered.” See Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 399 ( 207 SE2d 30 ); McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 376 ( 211 SE2d 577 ); Upton v. State, 128 Ga. App. 547, 548 (3) ( 197 SE2d 478 ). 1977Our appellate courts have assigned various reasons for the amendment providing for the exclusion of a witness’ testimony who is not on the list provided a defendant — even though he is not "a witness on whose testimony the charge against [the defendant] is founded,” unless the prosecuting attorney can claim he is *251 "newly-discovered.” See Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 399 ( 207 SE2d 30 ); McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 376 ( 211 SE2d 577 ); Upton v. State, 128 Ga. App. 547, 548 (3) ( 197 SE2d 478 ). | 1 | 1 |
McCorquodale v. Stategreen2 sentences1977Our appellate courts have assigned various reasons for the amendment providing for the exclusion of a witness’ testimony who is not on the list provided a defendant — even though he is not "a witness on whose testimony the charge against [the defendant] is founded,” unless the prosecuting attorney can claim he is *251 "newly-discovered.” See Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 399 ( 207 SE2d 30 ); McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 376 ( 211 SE2d 577 ); Upton v. State, 128 Ga. App. 547, 548 (3) ( 197 SE2d 478 ). 1977Our appellate courts have assigned various reasons for the amendment providing for the exclusion of a witness’ testimony who is not on the list provided a defendant — even though he is not "a witness on whose testimony the charge against [the defendant] is founded,” unless the prosecuting attorney can claim he is *251 "newly-discovered.” See Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 399 ( 207 SE2d 30 ); McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 376 ( 211 SE2d 577 ); Upton v. State, 128 Ga. App. 547, 548 (3) ( 197 SE2d 478 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. State
neutral
1 sentence2024This information may be developed by questions from the judge, the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney or a combination of any of these. 63 SE2d 414) (2013); Phelps v. State, 293 Ga. 873, 878 (II) (b) n.5 (750 SE2d 340) (2013); Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 394 (2) (a) (697 SE2d 177) (2010); Adams v. State, 285 Ga. 744, 746-747 (3) (683 SE2d 586) (2009). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
1 sentence2005He was present for his Georgia trial as a borrowed prisoner. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 85 ( 597 SE2d 332 ) (2004) citing Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (85 SC 1229, 14 LE2d 106) (1965); OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). 5 LeMay v. State, 265 Ga. 73, 75 ( 453 SE2d 737 ) (1995). 6 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 768 ( 410 SE2d 725 ) (1991); Cooper v. State, 260 Ga. 549, 550 ( 397 SE2d 705 ) (1990). 7 The Rule states that [a]t the earliest possible opportunity after indictment and before arraignment, the court shall confer with | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lashley v. State
green
1 sentence1984During the course of argument concerning whether the defense cross-examination of the sister-in-law was relevant (Division 2, supra), the prosecuting attorney stated that defense counsel was “creating the impression from some say-out (sic) reason it gave [defendant] the right to attack the two little girls.” Whereupon defense counsel said: “I would object to that.” The court made no ruling on the objection, nor was any further action taken by the defense. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.