Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2008 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 ( 409 SE2d 649 ) (1991). 2002Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 ( 409 SE2d 649 ) (1991). | 1 | 3 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Dean asserts that just as “[a] prior similar transaction may not be proved solely by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice,” Hill v. State, 236 Ga. 831, 833 ( 225 SE2d 281 ) (1976), a similar transaction cannot be proved by his uncorroborated confession. 2008Dean asserts that just as “[a] prior similar transaction may not be proved solely by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice,” Hill v. State, 236 Ga. 831, 833 ( 225 SE2d 281 ) (1976), a similar transaction cannot be proved by his uncorroborated confession. | 1 | 1 |
Guyton v. Stategreen2 sentences2006(Citation and footnote omitted.) Guyton v. State, 272 Ga. 529, 531 (3) ( 531 SE2d 94 ) (2000). 2006(Citation and footnote omitted.) Guyton v. State, 272 Ga. 529, 531 (3) ( 531 SE2d 94 ) (2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Huff v. State
green
2 sentences2008First, the State must demonstrate that the evidence is not brought forth to raise an improper reference to character but, rather, for an appropriate purpose deemed an exception to the general rule prohibiting this type of evidence; second, the State must show sufficient evidence to establish that the accused committed the independent offense or act; and third, the State must demonstrate a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offense or act and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. [Cit.] Huff v. State, 248 Ga. App. 233 ( 546 SE2d 24 ) ( 2008First, the State must demonstrate that the evidence is not brought forth to raise an improper reference to character but, rather, for an appropriate purpose deemed an exception to the general rule prohibiting this type of evidence; second, the State must show sufficient evidence to establish that the accused committed the independent offense or act; and third, the State must demonstrate a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offense or act and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. [Cit.] Huff v. State, 248 Ga. App. 233 ( 546 SE2d 24 ) ( | 1 | 2008–2008 |