record in search error in Georgia

2014Suffice it to say, this Court will not “cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party,”9 and if we have missed something in the record or misconstrued an argument, “the responsibility rests with counsel.”10 Additionally, Brittain appears to conflate arguments regarding his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him with the admission of certain hearsay evidence.11 Nevertheless, we will address both of these contentions in turn. 9 Adams v. State, 322 Ga. App. 782, 784 (1) ( 746 SE2d 261 ) (2013) (punctuation omitted); accord Burrowes v. State, 296 Ga. App. 629, 631 (1

2014Suffice it to say, this Court will not “cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party,”9 and if we have missed something in the record or misconstrued an argument, “the responsibility rests with counsel.”10 Additionally, Brittain appears to conflate arguments regarding his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him with the admission of certain hearsay evidence.11 Nevertheless, we will address both of these contentions in turn. 9 Adams v. State, 322 Ga. App. 782, 784 (1) ( 746 SE2d 261 ) (2013) (punctuation omitted); accord Burrowes v. State, 296 Ga. App. 629, 631 (1

1999"It is well-settled that an appellate court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of one of the parties." Saffar v. Chrysler First Business Credit Corp., 215 Ga.App. 239, 240 (1), 450 S.E.2d 267 (1994); see also Blackwell v. Goodwin, 236 Ga.App. 861, 862 (1), 513 S.E.2d 542 (1999).

1999"It is well-settled that an appellate court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of one of the parties." Saffar v. Chrysler First Business Credit Corp., 215 Ga.App. 239, 240 (1), 450 S.E.2d 267 (1994); see also Blackwell v. Goodwin, 236 Ga.App. 861, 862 (1), 513 S.E.2d 542 (1999).

2023See note 1, above. 5 affirmatively show error from the record on appeal.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”). 2.

2023See note 1, above. 5 affirmatively show error from the record on appeal.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”). 2.

1998Moreover, it is not the function of an appellate court to cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party (Manderson &c. v. Gore, 193 Ga. App. 723, 733 (8) ( 389 SE2d 251 )) and we decline to depart from this sage practice now.

1998Moreover, it is not the function of an appellate court to cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party (Manderson &c. v. Gore, 193 Ga. App. 723, 733 (8) ( 389 SE2d 251 )) and we decline to depart from this sage practice now.

2002“It is *753 well-settled that an appellate court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of one of the parties.” (Citations omitted.) Vitner v. Miller, 223 Ga. App. 692, 693 (1) ( 479 SE2d 1 ) (1996).

2002“It is *753 well-settled that an appellate court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of one of the parties.” (Citations omitted.) Vitner v. Miller, 223 Ga. App. 692, 693 (1) ( 479 SE2d 1 ) (1996).

2026See Hudson v. State, 246 Ga. App. 335, 335-36 (2) ( 539 SE2d 860 ) (2000) (concluding that an appellant waived review of his objection to a jury instruction where, among other violations of our rules, the appellant failed to provide a record cite to an allegedly objectionable jury instruction); see also Arnold v. State, 262 Ga. App. 61 (1) ( 584 SE2d 662 ) (2003) (“As we have reiterated time and time again, this Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2026See Hudson v. State, 246 Ga. App. 335, 335-36 (2) ( 539 SE2d 860 ) (2000) (concluding that an appellant waived review of his objection to a jury instruction where, among other violations of our rules, the appellant failed to provide a record cite to an allegedly objectionable jury instruction); see also Arnold v. State, 262 Ga. App. 61 (1) ( 584 SE2d 662 ) (2003) (“As we have reiterated time and time again, this Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2023See Strickland, 466 U. S. at 687-689 (III) (A), 694 (III) (B); Seabolt, 298 Ga. at 584-585 ; see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) ( 767 SE2d 24 ) (2014) (“It is [the appellant]’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to affirmatively show error from the record on appeal.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”). (d) Admission of Bell’s statements to law enforcement.

2023See Strickland, 466 U. S. at 687-689 (III) (A), 694 (III) (B); Seabolt, 298 Ga. at 584-585 ; see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) ( 767 SE2d 24 ) (2014) (“It is [the appellant]’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to affirmatively show error from the record on appeal.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”). (d) Admission of Bell’s statements to law enforcement.

2022Accord Manriquez v. State, 285 Ga. 880, 881 (2) ( 684 SE2d 650 ) (2009) (defendant bore the burden of demonstrating both Strickland prongs, and when a defendant claims that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to interview or call a witness for trial, defendant “must introduce either testimony from the uncalled witness or a legally recognized substitute for his testimony, such as an affidavit”). (b) Without providing citation to the relevant portion of the record, White argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion in limine to prohibit the

2022Accord Manriquez v. State, 285 Ga. 880, 881 (2) ( 684 SE2d 650 ) (2009) (defendant bore the burden of demonstrating both Strickland prongs, and when a defendant claims that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to interview or call a witness for trial, defendant “must introduce either testimony from the uncalled witness or a legally recognized substitute for his testimony, such as an affidavit”). (b) Without providing citation to the relevant portion of the record, White argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion in limine to prohibit the

2014Pruitt v. State, 323 Ga. App. 689, 690 (1) ( 747 SE2d 694 ) (2013) (this court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party, and if we have missed something in the record or misconstrued an argument, the responsibility rests with counsel).

2014Pruitt v. State, 323 Ga. App. 689, 690 (1) ( 747 SE2d 694 ) (2013) (this court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party, and if we have missed something in the record or misconstrued an argument, the responsibility rests with counsel).

1998Diffley v. Marshall’s, 227 Ga. App. 343, 345 ( 489 SE2d 123 ) (1997) (appellate court will not cull the record in search of error).

1998Diffley v. Marshall’s, 227 Ga. App. 343, 345 ( 489 SE2d 123 ) (1997) (appellate court will not cull the record in search of error).

1999We note that “it is not the function of an appellate court to cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party!,] and we decline to depart from this sage practice now.” (Citation omitted.) Sparti v. Joslin, 230 Ga. App. 346, 347 (2) ( 496 SE2d 490 ) (1998); see also Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2); Hall County School Dist. v. C.

1999We note that “it is not the function of an appellate court to cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party!,] and we decline to depart from this sage practice now.” (Citation omitted.) Sparti v. Joslin, 230 Ga. App. 346, 347 (2) ( 496 SE2d 490 ) (1998); see also Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2); Hall County School Dist. v. C.

1998Talley v. State, 200 Ga. App. 442, 446 (4) ( 408 SE2d 463 ) (1991).

1998Talley v. State, 200 Ga. App. 442, 446 (4) ( 408 SE2d 463 ) (1991).

2013Therefore, we do not consider the State’s brief in our analysis. 2 omitted.) Towry v. State, 304 Ga. App. 139 , 148 (2) (g), n. 7 ( 695 SE2d 683 ) (2010). “[T]his Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.

2013Pruitt further offers an array of merely conclusory statements in support of the enumeration, which “are not the type of meaningful argument contemplated by [Court of Appeals] Rule 25 (a) (3).” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Towry v. State, 304 Ga. App. 139, 148 (2) (g), n. 7 ( 695 SE2d 683 ) (2010). “[T]his Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.

2026See Hudson v. State, 246 Ga. App. 335, 335-36 (2) ( 539 SE2d 860 ) (2000) (concluding that an appellant waived review of his objection to a jury instruction where, among other violations of our rules, the appellant failed to provide a record cite to an allegedly objectionable jury instruction); see also Arnold v. State, 262 Ga. App. 61 (1) ( 584 SE2d 662 ) (2003) (“As we have reiterated time and time again, this Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2026See Hudson v. State, 246 Ga. App. 335, 335-36 (2) ( 539 SE2d 860 ) (2000) (concluding that an appellant waived review of his objection to a jury instruction where, among other violations of our rules, the appellant failed to provide a record cite to an allegedly objectionable jury instruction); see also Arnold v. State, 262 Ga. App. 61 (1) ( 584 SE2d 662 ) (2003) (“As we have reiterated time and time again, this Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2026Moreover, we note that Tolbert solely relies on Laney v. State, 184 Ga. App. 463, 467 (2) ( 361 SE2d 841 ) (1987), for the proposition that a “jury must be instructed not only on justification generally, but also the particular ‘forcible felony’ that underlies the defendant’s use of force.” However, this proposition of law — in Laney and generally — has been long overruled.

2026Moreover, we note that Tolbert solely relies on Laney v. State, 184 Ga. App. 463, 467 (2) ( 361 SE2d 841 ) (1987), for the proposition that a “jury must be instructed not only on justification generally, but also the particular ‘forcible felony’ that underlies the defendant’s use of force.” However, this proposition of law — in Laney and generally — has been long overruled.

2025See generally Bearfield v. State, 305 Ga. App. 37, 41 (2) ( 699 SE2d 363 ) (2010) (finding defendant failed to show error by the record in child molestation case where he claimed evidence was wrongly excluded, but did not introduce into evidence the medical report needed to support his contention); see also McDaniel v. 6 State, 367 Ga. App. 376 , 379 (d) ( 885 SE2d 245 ) (2023) (reiterating that this Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of any party).

2025See generally Bearfield v. State, 305 Ga. App. 37, 41 (2) ( 699 SE2d 363 ) (2010) (finding defendant failed to show error by the record in child molestation case where he claimed evidence was wrongly excluded, but did not introduce into evidence the medical report needed to support his contention); see also McDaniel v. 6 State, 367 Ga. App. 376 , 379 (d) ( 885 SE2d 245 ) (2023) (reiterating that this Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of any party).

2024Accordingly, Smith has failed to establish this claim of 8 See Roseboro v. State, 308 Ga. 428, 435 (2) (a) ( 841 SE2d 706 ) (2020) (“Because [the appellant] has not made a showing that had a motion been filed, the evidence would have been suppressed, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that trial counsel was not deficient.”). 9 ineffectiveness, and “[i]t is not the function of this Court to cull the record in search of error.”9 3.

2024Accordingly, Smith has failed to establish this claim of 8 See Roseboro v. State, 308 Ga. 428, 435 (2) (a) ( 841 SE2d 706 ) (2020) (“Because [the appellant] has not made a showing that had a motion been filed, the evidence would have been suppressed, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that trial counsel was not deficient.”). 9 ineffectiveness, and “[i]t is not the function of this Court to cull the record in search of error.”9 3.

2024In short, we are faced with a nondescript “standing objection” without knowing the true basis of the objection.9 “[T]he burden is always on the appellant in asserting error to show it affirmatively by the record[,]” Mathis v. State, 299 Ga. App. 831, 835 (1) (b), n. 15 ( 684 SE2d 6 ) (2009), and “[a]s we have reiterated time and time again, this Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.” Id. at 834 (1) (b), n. 11.

2024In short, we are faced with a nondescript “standing objection” without knowing the true basis of the objection.9 “[T]he burden is always on the appellant in asserting error to show it affirmatively by the record[,]” Mathis v. State, 299 Ga. App. 831, 835 (1) (b), n. 15 ( 684 SE2d 6 ) (2009), and “[a]s we have reiterated time and time again, this Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.” Id. at 834 (1) (b), n. 11.

2023See Day v. State, 367 Ga. App. 803 , 813 (4), n. 32 ( 888 SE2d 608 ) (2023) (noting that conclusory statements are not the type of meaningful argument contemplated by appellate court rules) (citation and punctuation omitted); Fitzpatrick v. State, 317 Ga. App. 873, 874 (1) ( 733 SE2d 46 ) (2012) (“[T]his Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2023See Day v. State, 367 Ga. App. 803 , 813 (4), n. 32 ( 888 SE2d 608 ) (2023) (noting that conclusory statements are not the type of meaningful argument contemplated by appellate court rules) (citation and punctuation omitted); Fitzpatrick v. State, 317 Ga. App. 873, 874 (1) ( 733 SE2d 46 ) (2012) (“[T]his Court will not cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2023See Strickland, 466 U. S. at 687-689 (III) (A), 694 (III) (B); Seabolt, 298 Ga. at 584-585 ; see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) ( 767 SE2d 24 ) (2014) (“It is [the appellant]’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to affirmatively show error from the record on appeal.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”). (d) Admission of Bell’s statements to law enforcement.

2022Accord Manriquez v. State, 285 Ga. 880, 881 (2) ( 684 SE2d 650 ) (2009) (defendant bore the burden of demonstrating both Strickland prongs, and when a defendant claims that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to interview or call a witness for trial, defendant “must introduce either testimony from the uncalled witness or a legally recognized substitute for his testimony, such as an affidavit”). (b) Without providing citation to the relevant portion of the record, White argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion in limine to prohibit the

2022Accord Manriquez v. State, 285 Ga. 880, 881 (2) ( 684 SE2d 650 ) (2009) (defendant bore the burden of demonstrating both Strickland prongs, and when a defendant claims that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to interview or call a witness for trial, defendant “must introduce either testimony from the uncalled witness or a legally recognized substitute for his testimony, such as an affidavit”). (b) Without providing citation to the relevant portion of the record, White argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion in limine to prohibit the

2020In the absence of a specific reference, the Court will not search for and may not consider that enumeration”); Ellison v. Burger King Corp., 294 Ga. App. 814, 815 (1) ( 670 SE2d 469 ) (2008) (“[W]e decline to look in the record for matters which should have been set forth in the brief.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”); see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) ( 767 SE2d 24 ) (2014) (“It is [the appellant]’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to affirmat

2020In the absence of a specific reference, the Court will not search for and may not consider that enumeration”); Ellison v. Burger King Corp., 294 Ga. App. 814, 815 (1) ( 670 SE2d 469 ) (2008) (“[W]e decline to look in the record for matters which should have been set forth in the brief.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”); see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) ( 767 SE2d 24 ) (2014) (“It is [the appellant]’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to affirmat

2020In the absence of a specific reference, the Court will not search for and may not consider that enumeration”); Ellison v. Burger King Corp., 294 Ga. App. 814, 815 (1) ( 670 SE2d 469 ) (2008) (“[W]e decline to look in the record for matters which should have been set forth in the brief.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”); see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) ( 767 SE2d 24 ) (2014) (“It is [the appellant]’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to affirmat

2020In the absence of a specific reference, the Court will not search for and may not consider that enumeration”); Ellison v. Burger King Corp., 294 Ga. App. 814, 815 (1) ( 670 SE2d 469 ) (2008) (“[W]e decline to look in the record for matters which should have been set forth in the brief.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”); see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) ( 767 SE2d 24 ) (2014) (“It is [the appellant]’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to affirmat

2020In the absence of a specific reference, the Court will not search for and may not consider that enumeration”); Ellison v. Burger King Corp., 294 Ga. App. 814, 815 (1) ( 670 SE2d 469 ) (2008) (“[W]e decline to look in the record for matters which should have been set forth in the brief.”); Dickerson v. State, 280 Ga. App. 29, 34 (2) ( 633 SE2d 367 ) (2006) (“[I]t is not the appellate court’s duty to cull the record in search of error.”); see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) ( 767 SE2d 24 ) (2014) (“It is [the appellant]’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to affirmat

2014Suffice it to say, this Court will not “cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party,”9 and if we have missed something in the record or misconstrued an argument, “the responsibility rests with counsel.”10 Additionally, Brittain appears to conflate arguments regarding his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him with the admission of certain hearsay evidence.11 Nevertheless, we will address both of these contentions in turn. 9 Adams v. State, 322 Ga. App. 782, 784 (1) ( 746 SE2d 261 ) (2013) (punctuation omitted); accord Burrowes v. State, 296 Ga. App. 629, 631 (1

2014Suffice it to say, this Court will not “cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party,”9 and if we have missed something in the record or misconstrued an argument, “the responsibility rests with counsel.”10 Additionally, Brittain appears to conflate arguments regarding his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him with the admission of certain hearsay evidence.11 Nevertheless, we will address both of these contentions in turn. 9 Adams v. State, 322 Ga. App. 782, 784 (1) ( 746 SE2d 261 ) (2013) (punctuation omitted); accord Burrowes v. State, 296 Ga. App. 629, 631 (1