pattern instruction in Georgia

2025See also Carrier Corp. v. Rollins, 316 Ga. App. 630, 638 (5) (a) ( 730 SE2d 103 ) (2012) (affirming discovery sanctions for violation of scheduling order imposing discovery deadlines); Gropper, 276 Ga. App. at 275-276 (1) (trial court did not abuse discretion by imposing sanctions for “a pattern of violation of discovery rules, explicit direction by the court, and written orders of the court”); Joel v. Duet Holdings, 181 Ga. App. 705, 706 ( 353 SE2d 548 ) (1987) (sanctions were warranted, in the absence of a motion to compel, where party failed to comply with order to appear for deposition and

2025See also Carrier Corp. v. Rollins, 316 Ga. App. 630, 638 (5) (a) ( 730 SE2d 103 ) (2012) (affirming discovery sanctions for violation of scheduling order imposing discovery deadlines); Gropper, 276 Ga. App. at 275-276 (1) (trial court did not abuse discretion by imposing sanctions for “a pattern of violation of discovery rules, explicit direction by the court, and written orders of the court”); Joel v. Duet Holdings, 181 Ga. App. 705, 706 ( 353 SE2d 548 ) (1987) (sanctions were warranted, in the absence of a motion to compel, where party failed to comply with order to appear for deposition and

2025See also Carrier Corp. v. Rollins, 316 Ga. App. 630, 638 (5) (a) ( 730 SE2d 103 ) (2012) (affirming discovery sanctions for violation of scheduling order imposing discovery deadlines); Gropper, 276 Ga. App. at 275-276 (1) (trial court did not abuse discretion by imposing sanctions for “a pattern of violation of discovery rules, explicit direction by the court, and written orders of the court”); Joel v. Duet Holdings, 181 Ga. App. 705, 706 ( 353 SE2d 548 ) (1987) (sanctions were warranted, in the absence of a motion to compel, where party failed to comply with order to appear for deposition and

2020See id. (affirming discovery sanctions for violation of scheduling order imposing discovery deadlines); Gropper, 276 Ga. App. at 275-276 (1) (trial court did not abuse discretion by imposing sanctions for “a pattern of violation of discovery rules, explicit direction by the court, and written orders of the court”); Joel v. Duet Holdings, 181 Ga. App. 705, 706 ( 353 SE2d 548 ) (1987) (sanctions were warranted, in the absence of a motion to compel, where party failed to comply with order to appear for deposition and produce documents).

2014McKenzie, supra, 293 Ga. App. at 352 (2).

2014McKenzie, supra, 293 Ga. App. at 352 (2).

2024See, e.g., White v. Stanley, 369 Ga. App. 330 , 337-38 (1) ( 893 SE2d 466 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court erred in giving Georgia’s then-current pattern jury instruction on “preponderance of the evidence”). 30 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Walker v. State, 311 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 859 SE2d 25 ) (2021) (“Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the requested [jury] instruction is 16 must be evaluated in “the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”31 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges

2024See, e.g., White v. Stanley, 369 Ga. App. 330 , 337-38 (1) ( 893 SE2d 466 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court erred in giving Georgia’s then-current pattern jury instruction on “preponderance of the evidence”). 30 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Walker v. State, 311 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 859 SE2d 25 ) (2021) (“Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the requested [jury] instruction is 16 must be evaluated in “the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”31 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges

2018See Brodes v. State , 279 Ga. 435 , 442, 614 S.E.2d 766 (2005).

2018See Brodes v. State , 279 Ga. 435 , 442, 614 S.E.2d 766 (2005).

2017See Rector, supra, citing Hill v. State, 250 Ga. App. 9, 11-12 (1) ( 550 SE2d 422 ) (2001).

2017See Rector, supra, citing Hill v. State, 250 Ga. App. 9, 11-12 (1) ( 550 SE2d 422 ) (2001).

2016See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, § 2.10.60 (4th ed. 2007, updated through July 2015); Milford v. State, 291 Ga. 347, 350 (3) (d) ( 729 SE2d 352 ) (2012); Green v. State, 266 Ga. 758, 759-760 (2) (b) ( 470 SE2d 884 ) (1996).

2016See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, § 2.10.60 (4th ed. 2007, updated through July 2015); Milford v. State, 291 Ga. 347, 350 (3) (d) (729 *317 SE2d 352) (2012); Green v. State, 266 Ga. 758, 759-760 (2) (b) ( 470 SE2d 884 ) (1996).

2016See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, § 2.10.60 (4th ed. 2007, updated through July 2015); Milford v. State, 291 Ga. 347, 350 (3) (d) (729 *317 SE2d 352) (2012); Green v. State, 266 Ga. 758, 759-760 (2) (b) ( 470 SE2d 884 ) (1996).

2016See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, § 2.10.60 (4th ed. 2007, updated through July 2015); Milford v. State, 291 Ga. 347, 350 (3) (d) (729 *317 SE2d 352) (2012); Green v. State, 266 Ga. 758, 759-760 (2) (b) ( 470 SE2d 884 ) (1996).

2016See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, § 3.16.20 (4th ed. 2007, updated through July 2015); Welbon v. State, 278 Ga. 312, 313 (3) ( 602 SE2d 610 ) (2004).

2016See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, § 3.16.20 (4th ed. 2007, updated through July 2015); Welbon v. State, 278 Ga. 312, 313 (3) ( 602 SE2d 610 ) (2004).

2016See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, § 3.10.41 (4th ed. 2007, updated through July 2015); Barron v. State, 261 Ga. 814, 815-816 (3) ( 411 SE2d 494 ) (1992).

2016See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, § 3.10.41 (4th ed. 2007, updated through July 2015); Barron v. State, 261 Ga. 814, 815-816 (3) ( 411 SE2d 494 ) (1992).

2012See Damerow v. State, 310 Ga. App. 530, 533 (2) ( 714 SE2d 82 ) (2011).

2012See Damerow v. State, 310 Ga. App. 530, 533 (2) ( 714 SE2d 82 ) (2011).

2007Rev. at 296. 29 II Council of Superior Court Judges of Ga., Ga. Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal Cases 16 § 1.31.60 (3d ed. 2003), citing Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 ( 334 SE2d 661 ) (1985), and Woodard, supra. 30 The pattern instruction was revised in July 2004.

2007Rev. at 296. 29 II Council of Superior Court Judges of Ga., Ga. Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal Cases 16 § 1.31.60 (3d ed. 2003), citing Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 ( 334 SE2d 661 ) (1985), and Woodard, supra. 30 The pattern instruction was revised in July 2004.

2026Cf. Woodard v. State, 296 Ga. 803, 810 (2015) (defendant waived appellate review of trial court’s pattern jury instruction about self-defense when the defend- ant requested the pattern instruction, participated in a discussion of the part of the instruction challenged on appeal, and then, “de- spite their awareness and discussion of [the issue on appeal], did not withdraw the request that the court give the full self-defense pattern instruction”).

2025See Jackson v. State, 311 Ga. 626, 633 (2021).

2025See also Carrier Corp. v. Rollins, 316 Ga. App. 630, 638 (5) (a) ( 730 SE2d 103 ) (2012) (affirming discovery sanctions for violation of scheduling order imposing discovery deadlines); Gropper, 276 Ga. App. at 275-276 (1) (trial court did not abuse discretion by imposing sanctions for “a pattern of violation of discovery rules, explicit direction by the court, and written orders of the court”); Joel v. Duet Holdings, 181 Ga. App. 705, 706 ( 353 SE2d 548 ) (1987) (sanctions were warranted, in the absence of a motion to compel, where party failed to comply with order to appear for deposition and

2025See also Carrier Corp. v. Rollins, 316 Ga. App. 630, 638 (5) (a) ( 730 SE2d 103 ) (2012) (affirming discovery sanctions for violation of scheduling order imposing discovery deadlines); Gropper, 276 Ga. App. at 275-276 (1) (trial court did not abuse discretion by imposing sanctions for “a pattern of violation of discovery rules, explicit direction by the court, and written orders of the court”); Joel v. Duet Holdings, 181 Ga. App. 705, 706 ( 353 SE2d 548 ) (1987) (sanctions were warranted, in the absence of a motion to compel, where party failed to comply with order to appear for deposition and

2024See, e.g., White v. Stanley, 369 Ga. App. 330 , 337-38 (1) ( 893 SE2d 466 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court erred in giving Georgia’s then-current pattern jury instruction on “preponderance of the evidence”). 30 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Walker v. State, 311 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 859 SE2d 25 ) (2021) (“Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the requested [jury] instruction is 16 must be evaluated in “the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”31 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges

2024See, e.g., White v. Stanley, 369 Ga. App. 330 , 337-38 (1) ( 893 SE2d 466 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court erred in giving Georgia’s then-current pattern jury instruction on “preponderance of the evidence”). 30 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Walker v. State, 311 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 859 SE2d 25 ) (2021) (“Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the requested [jury] instruction is 16 must be evaluated in “the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”31 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges

2024In the absence of controlling authority establishing that any error in the jury instructions at issue was obvious beyond reasonable dispute, the appellant could not meet the second prong of the plain-error test.”); Simmons, 314 Ga. at 889-890 (2) (a) (holding that defendant failed to show clear and obvious error in jury instruction, where the instruction appeared in Georgia’s pattern jury instructions, and the defendant did not point to any authority showing that the pattern instruction was deficient); Williams v. State, 304 Ga. 455, 458-459 (3) ( 818 SE2d 653 ) (2018) (concluding that defenda

2024In the absence of controlling authority establishing that any error in the jury instructions at issue was obvious beyond reasonable dispute, the appellant could not meet the second prong of the plain-error test.”); Simmons, 314 Ga. at 889-890 (2) (a) (holding that defendant failed to show clear and obvious error in jury instruction, where the instruction appeared in Georgia’s pattern jury instructions, and the defendant did not point to any authority showing that the pattern instruction was deficient); Williams v. State, 304 Ga. 455, 458-459 (3) ( 818 SE2d 653 ) (2018) (concluding that defenda

2024See, e.g., White v. Stanley, 369 Ga. App. 330 , 337-38 (1) ( 893 SE2d 466 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court erred in giving Georgia’s then-current pattern jury instruction on “preponderance of the evidence”). 30 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Walker v. State, 311 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 859 SE2d 25 ) (2021) (“Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the requested [jury] instruction is 16 must be evaluated in “the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”31 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges

2024See, e.g., White v. Stanley, 369 Ga. App. 330 , 337-38 (1) ( 893 SE2d 466 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court erred in giving Georgia’s then-current pattern jury instruction on “preponderance of the evidence”). 30 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Walker v. State, 311 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 859 SE2d 25 ) (2021) (“Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the requested [jury] instruction is 16 must be evaluated in “the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”31 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges

2024See, e.g., White v. Stanley, 369 Ga. App. 330 , 337-38 (1) ( 893 SE2d 466 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court erred in giving Georgia’s then-current pattern jury instruction on “preponderance of the evidence”). 30 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Walker v. State, 311 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 859 SE2d 25 ) (2021) (“Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the requested [jury] instruction is 16 must be evaluated in “the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”31 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges

2024See, e.g., White v. Stanley, 369 Ga. App. 330 , 337-38 (1) ( 893 SE2d 466 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court erred in giving Georgia’s then-current pattern jury instruction on “preponderance of the evidence”). 30 Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 288 , 289 (1) ( 878 SE2d 137 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Walker v. State, 311 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 859 SE2d 25 ) (2021) (“Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the requested [jury] instruction is 16 must be evaluated in “the context of the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole.”31 Indeed, the only requirement regarding jury charges

2024See also Muse v. State, 316 Ga. 639, 667 (9) (b) ( 889 SE2d 885 ) (2023) (“As to the second part of the plain error test, an error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law.

2024See also Muse v. State, 316 Ga. 639, 667 (9) (b) ( 889 SE2d 885 ) (2023) (“As to the second part of the plain error test, an error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law.

2024In the absence of controlling authority establishing that any error in the jury instructions at issue was obvious beyond reasonable dispute, the appellant could not meet the second prong of the plain-error test.”); Simmons, 314 Ga. at 889-890 (2) (a) (holding that defendant failed to show clear and obvious error in jury instruction, where the instruction appeared in Georgia’s pattern jury instructions, and the defendant did not point to any authority showing that the pattern instruction was deficient); Williams v. State, 304 Ga. 455, 458-459 (3) ( 818 SE2d 653 ) (2018) (concluding that defenda

2024See also Hassan v. State, 318 Ga. 673, 678-680 ( 899 SE2d 693 ) (2024) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that a jury instruction, which was similar to the one given in this case, failed to advise the jury of OCGA § 24-14-6 and holding that the instruction was not a clear and obvious error).16 16 Sauder also argues that the trial court incorrectly instructed that the jury “should not be concerned about whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial” and that “[t]here is no legal difference in the weight [the jury] may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence,” in accordance with the

2024See also Hassan v. State, 318 Ga. 673, 678-680 ( 899 SE2d 693 ) (2024) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that a jury instruction, which was similar to the one given in this case, failed to advise the jury of OCGA § 24-14-6 and holding that the instruction was not a clear and obvious error).16 16 Sauder also argues that the trial court incorrectly instructed that the jury “should not be concerned about whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial” and that “[t]here is no legal difference in the weight [the jury] may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence,” in accordance with the

2024See Eubanks v. State, 317 Ga. 563, 580 (894 SE2d 27) (2023) (holding that the trial court did not err by giving the pattern jury instruction on circumstantial evidence rather than instructing that the “State had to disprove any theory of innocence supported by the evidence,” because the pattern instruction “effectively conveyed” that point) (emphasis omitted).

2024See Eubanks v. State, 317 Ga. 563, 580 ( 894 SE2d 27 ) (2023) (holding that the trial court did not err by giving the pattern jury instruction on circumstantial evidence rather than instructing that the “State had to disprove any theory of innocence supported by the evidence,” because the pattern instruction “effectively conveyed” that point) (emphasis omitted).

2024But given the trial court’s pattern instruction on pain and suffering, the court’s failure to sua sponte instruct the jury as Geary argues she should have, is not so “substantial[ly] or necessarily harmful as to warrant review when no exception was taken.” Coe v. Coe, 285 Ga. 863, 865 (2) ( 684 SE2d 598 ) (2009) (citations omitted). (b) Preexisting condition 9 Geary argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the aggravation of preexisting conditions because the evidence did not support such a charge.

2024But given the trial court’s pattern instruction on pain and suffering, the court’s failure to sua sponte instruct the jury as Geary argues she should have, is not so “substantial[ly] or necessarily harmful as to warrant review when no exception was taken.” Coe v. Coe, 285 Ga. 863, 865 (2) ( 684 SE2d 598 ) (2009) (citations omitted). (b) Preexisting condition 9 Geary argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the aggravation of preexisting conditions because the evidence did not support such a charge.

2024In the absence of controlling authority establishing that any error in the jury instructions at issue was obvious beyond reasonable dispute, the appellant could not meet the second prong of the plain-error test.”); Simmons, 314 Ga. at 889-890 (2) (a) (holding that defendant failed to show clear and obvious error in jury instruction, where the instruction appeared in Georgia’s pattern jury instructions, and the defendant did not point to any authority showing that the pattern instruction was deficient); Williams v. State, 304 Ga. 455, 458-459 (3) ( 818 SE2d 653 ) (2018) (concluding that defenda

2024In the absence of controlling authority establishing that any error in the jury instructions at issue was obvious beyond reasonable dispute, the appellant could not meet the second prong of the plain-error test.”); Simmons, 314 Ga. at 889-890 (2) (a) (holding that defendant failed to show clear and obvious error in jury instruction, where the instruction appeared in Georgia’s pattern jury instructions, and the defendant did not point to any authority showing that the pattern instruction was deficient); Williams v. State, 304 Ga. 455, 458-459 (3) ( 818 SE2d 653 ) (2018) (concluding that defenda

2022See Stafford v. State, 312 Ga. 811, 821 (865 SE2d 116) (2021) (holding that because jury was “properly and adequately instructed on proximate cause, . . . [a]n additional jury charge on unforeseen or intervening cause was unnecessary,” and the defendant “ha[d] not shown prejudice from the lack of such request” to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). (b) Perkins contends that his trial counsel performed deficiently because Glover could be considered Perkins’s accomplice and Perkins’s trial counsel should have requested Pattern Jury Instruction 1.31.92.20 The record shows tha

2022See Stafford v. State, 312 Ga. 811, 821 (865 SE2d 116) (2021) (holding that because jury was “properly and adequately instructed on proximate cause, . . . [a]n additional jury charge on unforeseen or intervening cause was unnecessary,” and the defendant “ha[d] not shown prejudice from the lack of such request” to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). (b) Perkins contends that his trial counsel performed deficiently because Glover could be considered Perkins’s accomplice and Perkins’s trial counsel should have requested Pattern Jury Instruction 1.31.92.20 The record shows tha