5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2006“The determination of harmless error must be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the facts, the trial context of the error, and the prejudice created thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the evidence of [the] defendant’s guilt.” Taylor v. State, 253 Ga. App. 468, 469 (1) ( 559 SE2d 499 ) (2002). 2006“The determination of harmless error must be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the facts, the trial context of the error, and the prejudice created thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the evidence of [the] defendant’s guilt.” Taylor v. State, 253 Ga. App. 468, 469 (1) ( 559 SE2d 499 ) (2002). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Almanzagreen2 sentences2022See State v. Almanza, 304 Ga. 553, 556-558 (820 SE2d 1) (2018). 13 Appellant also argues – for the first time on appeal – that the admission of the jail video violated his constitutional right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. 2022See State v. Almanza, 304 Ga. 553, 556-558 (820 SE2d 1) (2018). 13 Appellant also argues – for the first time on appeal – that the admission of the jail video violated his constitutional right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Thus, Rule 404 (b) did not apply. 10 We address first Appellant’s argument that the evidence was not admissible under Rule 403, which says in pertinent part that “[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” The “‘exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy that should be used only sparingly.’” Jenkins v. State, 313 Ga. 81, 90 (868 SE2d 205) (2022) (citation omitted). 2022Thus, Rule 404 (b) did not apply. 10 We address first Appellant’s argument that the evidence was not admissible under Rule 403, which says in pertinent part that “[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” The “‘exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy that should be used only sparingly.’” Jenkins v. State, 313 Ga. 81, 90 (868 SE2d 205) (2022) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Stategreen2 sentences1975See Holland v. State, 113 Ga. App. 843 ( 149 SE2d 919 ) (1966), and Avery v. State, 209 Ga. 116 ( 70 SE2d 716 ) (1952); Hendrix v. State, 173 Ga. 419 ( 160 SE 614 ) (1931). 1975See Holland v. State, 113 Ga. App. 843 ( 149 SE2d 919 ) (1966), and Avery v. State, 209 Ga. 116 ( 70 SE2d 716 ) (1952); Hendrix v. State, 173 Ga. 419 ( 160 SE 614 ) (1931). | 1 | 1 |
Avery v. Stategreen2 sentences1975See Holland v. State, 113 Ga. App. 843 ( 149 SE2d 919 ) (1966), and Avery v. State, 209 Ga. 116 ( 70 SE2d 716 ) (1952); Hendrix v. State, 173 Ga. 419 ( 160 SE 614 ) (1931). 1975See Holland v. State, 113 Ga. App. 843 ( 149 SE2d 919 ) (1966), and Avery v. State, 209 Ga. 116 ( 70 SE2d 716 ) (1952); Hendrix v. State, 173 Ga. 419 ( 160 SE 614 ) (1931). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ham v. South Carolina
green
1 sentence1982In Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (93 SC 848, 35 LE2d 46) (1973), 2 the U. S. Supreme Court held that the trial court’s refusal to ask questions concerning racial bias requested by the defendant Ham, a black civil rights activist charged with possession of marijuana (whose defense was he was being framed on the drug charge because of his activism), denied him a fair trial in violation of the fourteenth amendment. 3 In Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589 (96 SC 1017, 47 LE2d 258) (1976), the Court held that the fourteenth amendment does not require the trial court to ask voir dire questions c | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Ristaino v. Ross
green
1 sentence1982In Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (93 SC 848, 35 LE2d 46) (1973), 2 the U. S. Supreme Court held that the trial court’s refusal to ask questions concerning racial bias requested by the defendant Ham, a black civil rights activist charged with possession of marijuana (whose defense was he was being framed on the drug charge because of his activism), denied him a fair trial in violation of the fourteenth amendment. 3 In Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589 (96 SC 1017, 47 LE2d 258) (1976), the Court held that the fourteenth amendment does not require the trial court to ask voir dire questions c | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Hendrix v. State
green
2 sentences1975See Holland v. State, 113 Ga. App. 843 ( 149 SE2d 919 ) (1966), and Avery v. State, 209 Ga. 116 ( 70 SE2d 716 ) (1952); Hendrix v. State, 173 Ga. 419 ( 160 SE 614 ) (1931). 1975See Holland v. State, 113 Ga. App. 843 ( 149 SE2d 919 ) (1966), and Avery v. State, 209 Ga. 116 ( 70 SE2d 716 ) (1952); Hendrix v. State, 173 Ga. 419 ( 160 SE 614 ) (1931). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.