flawed analysis (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

flawed analysis in Georgia

5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2022 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Maddox v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022See generally Maddox v. State, 322 Ga. App. 811, 815 (2) ( 746 SE2d 280 ) (2013) (finding, in context of contraband found in automobile where there was evidence that multiple occupants had equal access to contraband, that this could support the theory that all occupants had constructive possession and were guilty as parties to the crime, although the State could elect whether or not to prosecute all occupants, and finding “no basis . . . that the State is required under these circumstances to prove that the prosecuted occupant had sole constructive possession of the contraband”). “[E]qual acce

2022See generally Maddox v. State, 322 Ga. App. 811, 815 (2) ( 746 SE2d 280 ) (2013) (finding, in context of contraband found in automobile where there was evidence that multiple occupants had equal access to contraband, that this could support the theory that all occupants had constructive possession and were guilty as parties to the crime, although the State could elect whether or not to prosecute all occupants, and finding “no basis . . . that the State is required under these circumstances to prove that the prosecuted occupant had sole constructive possession of the contraband”). “[E]qual acce

11
DELAVEGA v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022See generally Maddox v. State, 322 Ga. App. 811, 815 (2) ( 746 SE2d 280 ) (2013) (finding, in context of contraband found in automobile where there was evidence that multiple occupants had equal access to contraband, that this could support the theory that all occupants had constructive possession and were guilty as parties to the crime, although the State could elect whether or not to prosecute all occupants, and finding “no basis . . . that the State is required under these circumstances to prove that the prosecuted occupant had sole constructive possession of the contraband”). “[E]qual acce

2022See generally Maddox v. State, 322 Ga. App. 811, 815 (2) ( 746 SE2d 280 ) (2013) (finding, in context of contraband found in automobile where there was evidence that multiple occupants had equal access to contraband, that this could support the theory that all occupants had constructive possession and were guilty as parties to the crime, although the State could elect whether or not to prosecute all occupants, and finding “no basis . . . that the State is required under these circumstances to prove that the prosecuted occupant had sole constructive possession of the contraband”). “[E]qual acce

11
cluster 152green
· · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015Compare, e.g., United States v. Perez, 116 F3d 840, 844-845 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (explaining that, after Olano , an instructional error no longer may he deemed invited merely because the defendant proposed the instruction in question; instead, to establish the waiver of a “known right,” the record must show that “the defendant considered the controlling law . . . and in spite of being aware of the applicable law, proposed or accepted a flawed instruction”), with, e.g., United States v. Frank, 599 F3d 1221, 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding, without reference to the Olano standard, that “when

11
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louise Han PEREZ; Joseph Eclavea Perez; John Velasco Cruz, Defendants-Appellantsgreen
ca9 · 1997 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015Compare, e.g., United States v. Perez, 116 F3d 840, 844-845 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (explaining that, after Olano , an instructional error no longer may he deemed invited merely because the defendant proposed the instruction in question; instead, to establish the waiver of a “known right,” the record must show that “the defendant considered the controlling law . . . and in spite of being aware of the applicable law, proposed or accepted a flawed instruction”), with, e.g., United States v. Frank, 599 F3d 1221, 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding, without reference to the Olano standard, that “when

11
United States v. Ricky Marianogreen
ca8 · 2013 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See also United States v. Mariano, 729 F3d 874, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (suggesting that even “[i]f proposing an instruction is not waiver of the right to challenge it on appeal, then [the Eighth Circuit’s] ‘invited error’ cases also could be understood asa categorical conclusion that a conviction based on a mistaken jury instruction that was specifically requested by the defendant does not result in a miscarriage of justice” and thus fails under the final prong of the plain-error test).

11
State v. Lestergreen
gactapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008“The fact that the issue is determined pre-trial does not relieve the State of this burden.” State v. Lester, 170 Ga. App. 471, 473 ( 317 SE2d 295 ) (1984) (physical precedent only). 2.

2008“The fact that the issue is determined pre-trial does not relieve the State of this burden.” State v. Lester, 170 Ga. App. 471, 473 ( 317 SE2d 295 ) (1984) (physical precedent only). 2.

11
Tarver v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008The State asserts that the trial court “employed a flawed analysis by incorrectly requiring [it] to prove that a crime occurred within the five-year limitation period.” We disagree that this analysis was flawed because “[t]he burden is on the State to prove that a crime occurred within the applicable statute of limitation.” (Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Tarver v. State, 198 Ga. App. 634, 635 ( 402 SE2d 365 ) (1991).

2008The State asserts that the trial court “employed a flawed analysis by incorrectly requiring [it] to prove that a crime occurred within the five-year limitation period.” We disagree that this analysis was flawed because “[t]he burden is on the State to prove that a crime occurred within the applicable statute of limitation.” (Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Tarver v. State, 198 Ga. App. 634, 635 ( 402 SE2d 365 ) (1991).

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. green
scotus · 1976
2 sentences

2005Although the County, citing to Young, supra, 427 U. S. at 58-59 , asserts that the definition of sexually-oriented adult use in its development code is “unquestionably applicable” to appellant “even if there may be some uncertainty about the effect of the [definition] on other litigants,” id., we reject that assertion because it is premised upon the County’s consideration of the overall nature of appellant’s store.

2005Although the County, citing to Young, supra, 427 U. S. at 58-59 , asserts that the definition of sexually-oriented adult use in its development code is “unquestionably applicable” to appellant “even if there may be some uncertainty about the effect of the [definition] on other litigants,” id., we reject that assertion because it is premised upon the County’s consideration of the overall nature of appellant’s store.

12005–2005
Hodo v. State green
ga · 2000
2 sentences

2002In the recent case of Hodo v. State, 272 Ga. 272 , 528 S.E.2d 250 (2000), the defendant claimed that his constitutional right to confrontation was violated when the trial court did not permit him to question a State's witness, who was a drug dealer, about the potential sentence he could face because of criminal conduct the witness had admitted on the stand.

2002In the recent case of Hodo v. State, 272 Ga. 272 , 528 S.E.2d 250 (2000), the defendant claimed that his constitutional right to confrontation was violated when the trial court did not permit him to question a State's witness, who was a drug dealer, about the potential sentence he could face because of criminal conduct the witness had admitted on the stand.

12002–2002

Where else courts name it

IL 14 (2001–2025) FL 13 (1988–2019) TX 11 (1990–2025) CA 9 (1989–2024) PA 8 (2006–2026) MI 8 (2008–2021) NY 8 (1981–2025) WA 6 (2005–2015) GA 5 (2002–2022) MA 5 (1984–2002) AZ 5 (1990–2022) CT 5 (1996–2018) UT 5 (1991–2024) AR 4 (2000–2025) NJ 4 (1994–2025) NM 4 (2011–2025) MO 4 (2013–2025) VA 4 (2004–2025) IA 4 (2013–2020) KS 3 (2013–2024) SC 2 (2024–2024) WV 2 (1990–2009) OK 2 (2001–2013) MD 2 (2011–2013) AL 2 (2014–2025) MT 2 (2004–2015) CO 2 (2008–2013) OR 2 (1999–2013) GU 2 (2021–2023) IN 2 (2006–2017) NC 2 (2018–2019) HI 2 (2005–2015)

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