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 2013–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matthews v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The ensuing bench conference was not transcribed, and the record contains neither a ruling on trial counsel’s objection nor a request for a curative instruction or any other remedial measure. “[A] prosecutor is granted wide latitude in the conduct of closing argument, the bounds of which are in the trial court’s discretion.” Matthews v. State, 294 Ga. 50, 53 (3) (b) ( 751 SE2d 78 ) (2013). 2014The ensuing bench conference was not transcribed, and the record contains neither a ruling on trial counsel’s objection nor a request for a curative instruction or any other remedial measure. “[A] prosecutor is granted wide latitude in the conduct of closing argument, the bounds of which are in the trial court’s discretion.” Matthews v. State, 294 Ga. 50, 53 (3) (b) ( 751 SE2d 78 ) (2013). | 2 | 2 |
Head v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Head v. State, 288 Ga. App. 205, 208 (2) ( 653 SE2d 540 ) (2007). 2013See Head v. State, 288 Ga. App. 205, 208 (2) ( 653 SE2d 540 ) (2007). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2022Accordingly, we will apply the same standard of review as the Supreme Court of Georgia, namely whether the State fulfilled its burden of showing “that it was highly probably that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at (2). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.