Roberts v. State  ·  2020-08-24  ·  Supreme Court of Georgia  ·  pin 636 S.E.2d at 530

“[I]f each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.”

Earwood v. State  ·  2019-04-30  ·  Court of Appeals of Georgia  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 281 Ga. at 211

"When the document is prepared by a third person not in the presence of a witness, the memory is not refreshed by such memorandum and such testimony is inadmissible."

Hall v. State  ·  2011-10-27  ·  Court of Appeals of Georgia  ·  pin 281 Ga. at 211

“[T]he applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not”

Ransom v. State  ·  2009-06-16  ·  Court of Appeals of Georgia  ·  pin 636 S.E.2d at 530

“the applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not”