Duncan analysis (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

Duncan analysis in Georgia

5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2017 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Jackson v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017There was no objection by Duncan’s trial counsel noted in the record. 12 Additionally, Duncan’s trial counsel testified at the hearing on Duncan’s motion for new trial that while he thought he made an objection, he was “not 100% sure.” “[Wjhere the transcript or record does not fully disclose what transpired at trial, the burden is on the complaining party to have the record completed in the trial court under the provisions of OCGA § 5-6-41 (f). [ 13 ] When this is not done, there is nothing for the appellate court to review.” (Citation omitted.) Jackson v. State, 256 Ga. App. 829, 832 (5) ( 5

2017There was no objection by Duncan’s trial counsel noted in the record. 12 Additionally, Duncan’s trial counsel testified at the hearing on Duncan’s motion for new trial that while he thought he made an objection, he was “not 100% sure.” “[Wjhere the transcript or record does not fully disclose what transpired at trial, the burden is on the complaining party to have the record completed in the trial court under the provisions of OCGA § 5-6-41 (f). [ 13 ] When this is not done, there is nothing for the appellate court to review.” (Citation omitted.) Jackson v. State, 256 Ga. App. 829, 832 (5) ( 5

11
Malcolm v. Stategreen
ga · 1993 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999Generally, “those portions of business records which contain conclusions, opinions, estimates and impressions of third parties who are not *18 before the court are not admissible.” Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 (3) ( 434 SE2d 479 ) (1993).

1999Generally, “those portions of business records which contain conclusions, opinions, estimates and impressions of third parties who are not *18 before the court are not admissible.” Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 (3) ( 434 SE2d 479 ) (1993).

11
White v. Stategreen
ga · 1985 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986White v. State. 255 Ga. 210, 214 ( 336 SE2d 777 ) (1985). 3.

1986White v. State. 255 Ga. 210, 214 ( 336 SE2d 777 ) (1985). 3.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Guzman green
ca11 · 1999
1 sentence

2017Here, “[t]he government’s [allegedly] improper question backfired and, arguably, [Duncan’s] case was strengthened by [the witnesses’] response[s].” Id.

12017–2017
Smith v. State green
ga · 1996
2 sentences

2008“An out-of-time appeal is appropriate where, as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, a timely direct appeal was not taken.” (Citation omitted.) Smith v. State, 266 Ga. 687 ( 470 SE2d 436 ) (1996).

2008“An out-of-time appeal is appropriate where, as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, a timely direct appeal was not taken.” (Citation omitted.) Smith v. State, 266 Ga. 687 ( 470 SE2d 436 ) (1996).

12008–2008
Shields v. State green
ga · 2003
1 sentence

2008“While a conviction obtained without proof of venue may be ‘void,’ and will warrant reversal and a new trial, it does not justify the departure from the settled procedures for challenging the sufficiency of evidence used to obtain a conviction.” (Footnotes omitted.) Shields, 276 Ga. at 671 .

12008–2008
Boatman v. Chapman green
gactapp · 1985
2 sentences

1996This Court also used the Duncan analysis in Boatman v. Chapman, 174 Ga.App. 77 , 329 S.E.2d 185 (1985), citing Duncan for the proposition that revocation may be permitted prior to final adoption for good and sufficient cause.

1996This Court also used the Duncan analysis in Boatman v. Chapman, 174 Ga.App. 77 , 329 S.E.2d 185 (1985), citing Duncan for the proposition that revocation may be permitted prior to final adoption for good and sufficient cause.

11996–1996

Where else courts name it

OH 22 (1993–2025) PA 6 (2000–2025) TX 6 (1988–2006) MS 5 (2003–2017) GA 5 (1986–2017) SC 4 (1982–2010) FL 4 (1985–2006) MT 4 (2002–2012) AR 3 (1997–2014) ME 3 (1969–1974) CA 3 (1970–2001) KY 3 (1996–2020) IN 3 (2013–2015) OK 2 (2015–2015) IL 2 (1956–1980) MN 2 (2000–2015) CO 2 (2004–2006) AL 2 (1981–1992) LA 2 (2009–2026) AZ 2 (1996–2024) KS 2 (2021–2026)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check