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.
8 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1902–1975 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences1966In explaining what the court meant by the “same-transaction” test, it was said “it therefore appears that this court in numerous decisions, although recognizing as controlling the 'same-transaction’ test, in its efforts to elucidate what in fact constitutes the same transaction, has nevertheless applied elements pertaining to the 'same-evidence’ rule; and in doing so has recognized the generally approved principle, that, in order for the transaction to be the same, it must be identical both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.” Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109, 116 , supra. (Citations omitt 1943While in Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109, 114 ( 17 S. E. 2d, 573 ), it was stated that some confusion exists in our decisions in reference to the rules for determining former jeopardy, there was no departure from the same-transaction test, that decision having turned on the principle of res judicata or estoppel by judgment, which is entirely consistent with if not actually included within the same- *853 transaction rule. | 1 | 2 |
Gully v. Stategreen2 sentences1943In Gully v. State, 116 Ga. 527 ( 42 S. E. 790 ), this court discussed rather fully the different rules for determining a plea of former jeopardy, and stated that as between the rules known respectively as “the same-evidence test” and “the same-transaction test,” the latter rule has been the one adopted and generally followed in this State. 1943In Gully v. State, 116 Ga. 527 ( 42 S. E. 790 ), this court discussed rather fully the different rules for determining a plea of former jeopardy, and stated that as between the rules known respectively as “the same-evidence test” and “the same-transaction test,” the latter rule has been the one adopted and generally followed in this State. | 1 | 2 |
Scott v. Stategreen2 sentences1954In Scott v. State, 157 Ga. 124, 130 ( 120 S. E. 773 ) the following charge to the jury was approved: “Where one man shoots at another and kills a third party accidentally . . . then he is guilty of the same offense as though he shot and killed the person at whom he shot or in *458 tended to shoot.” .(Italics ours.) In Burnam v. State, 2 Ga. App. 395 ( 58 S. E. 683 ) it is held as follows: “The same-transaction test adopted in this State may make a trial for the murder of ¿ríe person a bar to a prosecution for assault with intent to murder á different person.' For instance, if the defendant sho 1954In Scott v. State, 157 Ga. 124, 130 ( 120 S. E. 773 ) the following charge to the jury was approved: “Where one man shoots at another and kills a third party accidentally . . . then he is guilty of the same offense as though he shot and killed the person at whom he shot or in *458 tended to shoot.” .(Italics ours.) In Burnam v. State, 2 Ga. App. 395 ( 58 S. E. 683 ) it is held as follows: “The same-transaction test adopted in this State may make a trial for the murder of ¿ríe person a bar to a prosecution for assault with intent to murder á different person.' For instance, if the defendant sho | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. State
green
2 sentences1975In Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8 , Judge Starnes, after stating that there seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says: 'To avoid any confusion on this subject, we adopt the rule as it is otherwise more generally, and perhaps more accurately, expressed, viz.: that the plea of autrefois acquit or conviction is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.’ The rule thus laid down was applied in the following cases. 1930In the judgment overruling the plea the court stated that the evidence came fully up to “the same-transaction test” and “the same-evidence test” within the meaning of the cases of Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8 ( 58 Am. | 5 | 1902–1975 |
Holt v. State
green
2 sentences1942In Roberts v. State [supra], Judge Starnes, after stating that there seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says: ‘To avoid any confusion on this subject, we adopt the rule, as it is otherwise more generally and perhaps more accurately expressed, viz.: that the plea of autrefois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.’ The rule thus laid down was applied in the following eases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, 64 Ga. 50 1902In Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8 , Judge Starnes, after stating that there ■seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says : “To avoid any confusion ■on this subject, we adopt the rule as it is otherwise more generally, ■and perhaps more accurately, expressed, viz.: that the plea of autre fois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.” The rule thus laid down was applied in the following cases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, | 2 | 1902–1942 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences1942In Roberts v. State [supra], Judge Starnes, after stating that there seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says: ‘To avoid any confusion on this subject, we adopt the rule, as it is otherwise more generally and perhaps more accurately expressed, viz.: that the plea of autrefois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.’ The rule thus laid down was applied in the following eases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, 64 Ga. 50 1902In Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8 , Judge Starnes, after stating that there ■seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says : “To avoid any confusion ■on this subject, we adopt the rule as it is otherwise more generally, ■and perhaps more accurately, expressed, viz.: that the plea of autre fois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.” The rule thus laid down was applied in the following cases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, | 2 | 1902–1942 |
Buhler v. State
neutral
2 sentences1942In Roberts v. State [supra], Judge Starnes, after stating that there seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says: ‘To avoid any confusion on this subject, we adopt the rule, as it is otherwise more generally and perhaps more accurately expressed, viz.: that the plea of autrefois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.’ The rule thus laid down was applied in the following eases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, 64 Ga. 50 1902In Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8 , Judge Starnes, after stating that there ■seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says : “To avoid any confusion ■on this subject, we adopt the rule as it is otherwise more generally, ■and perhaps more accurately, expressed, viz.: that the plea of autre fois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.” The rule thus laid down was applied in the following cases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, | 2 | 1902–1942 |
Goode v. State
neutral
2 sentences1942In Roberts v. State [supra], Judge Starnes, after stating that there seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says: ‘To avoid any confusion on this subject, we adopt the rule, as it is otherwise more generally and perhaps more accurately expressed, viz.: that the plea of autrefois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.’ The rule thus laid down was applied in the following eases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, 64 Ga. 50 1902In Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8 , Judge Starnes, after stating that there ■seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says : “To avoid any confusion ■on this subject, we adopt the rule as it is otherwise more generally, ■and perhaps more accurately, expressed, viz.: that the plea of autre fois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.” The rule thus laid down was applied in the following cases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, | 2 | 1902–1942 |
Knight v. State
neutral
2 sentences1942In Roberts v. State [supra], Judge Starnes, after stating that there seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says: ‘To avoid any confusion on this subject, we adopt the rule, as it is otherwise more generally and perhaps more accurately expressed, viz.: that the plea of autrefois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.’ The rule thus laid down was applied in the following eases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, 64 Ga. 50 1902In Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8 , Judge Starnes, after stating that there ■seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says : “To avoid any confusion ■on this subject, we adopt the rule as it is otherwise more generally, ■and perhaps more accurately, expressed, viz.: that the plea of autre fois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.” The rule thus laid down was applied in the following cases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, | 2 | 1902–1942 |
Knox v. State
neutral
2 sentences1942In Roberts v. State [supra], Judge Starnes, after stating that there seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says: ‘To avoid any confusion on this subject, we adopt the rule, as it is otherwise more generally and perhaps more accurately expressed, viz.: that the plea of autrefois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.’ The rule thus laid down was applied in the following eases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, 64 Ga. 50 1942In Roberts v. State [supra], Judge Starnes, after stating that there seemed to be some difficulty about applying in all cases the rule known as the same-evidence test, says: ‘To avoid any confusion on this subject, we adopt the rule, as it is otherwise more generally and perhaps more accurately expressed, viz.: that the plea of autrefois acquit or convict is sufficient whenever the proof shows the second case to be the same transaction with the first.’ The rule thus laid down was applied in the following eases: Holt v. State, 38 Ga. 187 ; Jones v. State, 55 Ga. 625 ; Buhler v. State, 64 Ga. 50 | 2 | 1902–1942 |
Burnam v. State
green
2 sentences1954In Scott v. State, 157 Ga. 124, 130 ( 120 S. E. 773 ) the following charge to the jury was approved: “Where one man shoots at another and kills a third party accidentally . . . then he is guilty of the same offense as though he shot and killed the person at whom he shot or in *458 tended to shoot.” .(Italics ours.) In Burnam v. State, 2 Ga. App. 395 ( 58 S. E. 683 ) it is held as follows: “The same-transaction test adopted in this State may make a trial for the murder of ¿ríe person a bar to a prosecution for assault with intent to murder á different person.' For instance, if the defendant sho 1954In Scott v. State, 157 Ga. 124, 130 ( 120 S. E. 773 ) the following charge to the jury was approved: “Where one man shoots at another and kills a third party accidentally . . . then he is guilty of the same offense as though he shot and killed the person at whom he shot or in *458 tended to shoot.” .(Italics ours.) In Burnam v. State, 2 Ga. App. 395 ( 58 S. E. 683 ) it is held as follows: “The same-transaction test adopted in this State may make a trial for the murder of ¿ríe person a bar to a prosecution for assault with intent to murder á different person.' For instance, if the defendant sho | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1902The ruling in the Blair case was followed in Smith v. State, 105 Ga. 724 . | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.