8 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Davis v. Alaska, [supra at 316-317]; Hines v. State, [supra at 259-260].” Johnson v. State, 244 Ga. App. 128, 131 (1) ( 534 SE2d 480 ) (2000). 2001Davis v. Alaska, [supra at 316-317]; Hines v. State, [supra at 259-260].” Johnson v. State, 244 Ga. App. 128, 131 (1) ( 534 SE2d 480 ) (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Alaskagreen1 sentence2001Davis v. Alaska, [supra at 316-317]; Hines v. State, [supra at 259-260].” Johnson v. State, 244 Ga. App. 128, 131 (1) ( 534 SE2d 480 ) (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Bryan v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Bryan v. State, 168 Ga. App. 711, 712 (3) ( 310 SE2d 533 ). 1999Bryan v. State, 168 Ga. App. 711, 712 (3) ( 310 SE2d 533 ). | 1 | 1 |
Dye v. Stategreen2 sentences1991“A motion for mistrial not made at the time the testimony objected to is given is not timely and will be considered as waived because of the delay in making it.” Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 143 (5) ( 390 SE2d 841 ); compare Dye v. State, 177 Ga. App. 824, 825 ( 341 SE2d 314 ). 3. 1991“A motion for mistrial not made at the time the testimony objected to is given is not timely and will be considered as waived because of the delay in making it.” Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 143 (5) ( 390 SE2d 841 ); compare Dye v. State, 177 Ga. App. 824, 825 ( 341 SE2d 314 ). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Thaxton v. Stategreen2 sentences1991“A motion for mistrial not made at the time the testimony objected to is given is not timely and will be considered as waived because of the delay in making it.” Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 143 (5) ( 390 SE2d 841 ); compare Dye v. State, 177 Ga. App. 824, 825 ( 341 SE2d 314 ). 3. 1991“A motion for mistrial not made at the time the testimony objected to is given is not timely and will be considered as waived because of the delay in making it.” Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 143 (5) ( 390 SE2d 841 ); compare Dye v. State, 177 Ga. App. 824, 825 ( 341 SE2d 314 ). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Spead v. Stategreen2 sentences1989However, counsel did admit in response to a question from the trial judge as to whether the bag was in the possession of Officer Smith that “[y]eah, he had it laying up on the table.” It thus appears from the current state of the record that this incident occurred during a lunch break in the case sub judice, and after the evidence had been subjected to laboratory analysis. “ ‘(W)here the State seeks to introduce evidence of a fungible nature, it must show a chain of custody which is adequate to preserve the identity of the evidence. [Cit.] Hence, the burden is on the prosecution “to show with 1989However, counsel did admit in response to a question from the trial judge as to whether the bag was in the possession of Officer Smith that “[y]eah, he had it laying up on the table.” It thus appears from the current state of the record that this incident occurred during a lunch break in the case sub judice, and after the evidence had been subjected to laboratory analysis. “ ‘(W)here the State seeks to introduce evidence of a fungible nature, it must show a chain of custody which is adequate to preserve the identity of the evidence. [Cit.] Hence, the burden is on the prosecution “to show with | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hambrick v. State
green
2 sentences1994The trial court gave a curative instruction to the jury concluding expressly that the jurors “should disregard that which was objected to, and the court is now sustaining that objection.” Examining the curative instruction in its totality (cf. Hambrick v. State, 256 Ga. 688 (3) ( 353 SE2d 177 )), we are satisfied it was not misleading and was sufficient to prevent any prejudicial impact, within the meaning of Allen v. State, 259 Ga. 303 (2) ( 379 SE2d 513 ), caused by K. 1994The trial court gave a curative instruction to the jury concluding expressly that the jurors “should disregard that which was objected to, and the court is now sustaining that objection.” Examining the curative instruction in its totality (cf. Hambrick v. State, 256 Ga. 688 (3) ( 353 SE2d 177 )), we are satisfied it was not misleading and was sufficient to prevent any prejudicial impact, within the meaning of Allen v. State, 259 Ga. 303 (2) ( 379 SE2d 513 ), caused by K. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Allen v. State
green
2 sentences1994The trial court gave a curative instruction to the jury concluding expressly that the jurors “should disregard that which was objected to, and the court is now sustaining that objection.” Examining the curative instruction in its totality (cf. Hambrick v. State, 256 Ga. 688 (3) ( 353 SE2d 177 )), we are satisfied it was not misleading and was sufficient to prevent any prejudicial impact, within the meaning of Allen v. State, 259 Ga. 303 (2) ( 379 SE2d 513 ), caused by K. 1994The trial court gave a curative instruction to the jury concluding expressly that the jurors “should disregard that which was objected to, and the court is now sustaining that objection.” Examining the curative instruction in its totality (cf. Hambrick v. State, 256 Ga. 688 (3) ( 353 SE2d 177 )), we are satisfied it was not misleading and was sufficient to prevent any prejudicial impact, within the meaning of Allen v. State, 259 Ga. 303 (2) ( 379 SE2d 513 ), caused by K. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Flourney v. State
green
2 sentences1993At no point in the proceedings did defense counsel move for a mistrial (compare Flourney v. State, 257 Ga. 265 ( 357 SE2d 574 )) or otherwise object on the grounds that the trial court’s comment in the jury’s presence constituted error; further, appellant does not enumerate as error these remarks in the jury’s presence. 1993At no point in the proceedings did defense counsel move for a mistrial (compare Flourney v. State, 257 Ga. 265 ( 357 SE2d 574 )) or otherwise object on the grounds that the trial court’s comment in the jury’s presence constituted error; further, appellant does not enumerate as error these remarks in the jury’s presence. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Rowe v. Rowe
green
2 sentences1993At the onset, we note “[t]he trial judge is presumed to know the law and to be capable of separating admissible grains of evidence from inadmissible chaff.” Rowe v. Rowe, 195 Ga. App. 493 (2) ( 393 SE2d 750 ). 1993At the onset, we note “[t]he trial judge is presumed to know the law and to be capable of separating admissible grains of evidence from inadmissible chaff.” Rowe v. Rowe, 195 Ga. App. 493 (2) ( 393 SE2d 750 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Mundy v. State
green
2 sentences1990Appellant has waived any grounds for objection to this evidence, other than that of logical and legal relevancy, because he did not make any other timely, specific objections at trial to the introduction of this evidence (Ray, supra; Mundy, supra; People v. Hardy, supra), and because the scope of any continuing objection, at best, extended only as to objections of relevancy and prejudice as asserted in the motion in limine and reasserted in the out-of-court hearing pertaining thereto. 1990Appellant has waived any grounds for objection to this evidence, other than that of logical and legal relevancy, because he did not make any other timely, specific objections at trial to the introduction of this evidence ( Ray, supra; Mundy, supra; People v. Hardy, supra), and because the scope of any continuing objection, at best, extended only as to objections of relevancy and prejudice as asserted in the motion in limine and reasserted in the out-of-court hearing pertaining thereto. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Hardy
green
2 sentences1990Appellant has waived any grounds for objection to this evidence, other than that of logical and legal relevancy, because he did not make any other timely, specific objections at trial to the introduction of this evidence (Ray, supra; Mundy, supra; People v. Hardy, supra), and because the scope of any continuing objection, at best, extended only as to objections of relevancy and prejudice as asserted in the motion in limine and reasserted in the out-of-court hearing pertaining thereto. 1990Appellant has waived any grounds for objection to this evidence, other than that of logical and legal relevancy, because he did not make any other timely, specific objections at trial to the introduction of this evidence ( Ray, supra; Mundy, supra; People v. Hardy, supra), and because the scope of any continuing objection, at best, extended only as to objections of relevancy and prejudice as asserted in the motion in limine and reasserted in the out-of-court hearing pertaining thereto. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1989However, counsel did admit in response to a question from the trial judge as to whether the bag was in the possession of Officer Smith that “[y]eah, he had it laying up on the table.” It thus appears from the current state of the record that this incident occurred during a lunch break in the case sub judice, and after the evidence had been subjected to laboratory analysis. “ ‘(W)here the State seeks to introduce evidence of a fungible nature, it must show a chain of custody which is adequate to preserve the identity of the evidence. [Cit.] Hence, the burden is on the prosecution “to show with 1989However, counsel did admit in response to a question from the trial judge as to whether the bag was in the possession of Officer Smith that “[y]eah, he had it laying up on the table.” It thus appears from the current state of the record that this incident occurred during a lunch break in the case sub judice, and after the evidence had been subjected to laboratory analysis. “ ‘(W)here the State seeks to introduce evidence of a fungible nature, it must show a chain of custody which is adequate to preserve the identity of the evidence. [Cit.] Hence, the burden is on the prosecution “to show with | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.