Fraser v. the State, 763 S.E.2d 359 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Fraser v. the State, 763 S.E.2d 359 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alexander Osborne v. State (gactapp, 2025-08-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alexander Osborne v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings. 3 Osborne acknowledges that his failure to object below requires review for plain error. 6 Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1, 2 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jason Jermoine Tucker v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Regardless, the outcome would be the same here, even if we were to exclude Thompson’s, Owens’s, and Francisco’s testimony from our analysis, given the other strong evidence of Jarvis’s guilt 11 Thompson, 304 Ga. at 151 (6); see also Mosley v. State, 298 Ga. 849, 852-853 (2) (b) ( 785 SE2d 297 ) (2016) (because an investigator’s testimony describing another witness’s out-of-court statements was merely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence, the investigator’s testimony did not likely affect the outcome of the trial, and its admission thus was not plain error); Fraser v. St…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Lafavor v. the State (6×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1, 2 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014) (punctuation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nguyen v. the State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. .. . 2 We note that this holding in Jones is currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of Georgia, Case No. S14G1061. 3 “Georgia has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel [or a pro se defendant] must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fraser v. State, 329 Ga…
discussed Cited "see" Gregory Lamar Ward v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1, 2 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014).
discussed Cited "see" Kerry Dwight Albright v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014).
discussed Cited "see" Mosley v. State (2×)
Ga. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. App. 1, 2 ( 763 SE2d 359 ) (2014). (c) The police investigator also testified about a statement provided to him by Butler, who was one of the men who fled the scene in Mosley’s Impala.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raoul Fraser
v.
State
A14A0863.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sep 10, 2014.
763 S.E.2d 359
King, King & Jones, David H. Jones, for appellant., Tasha M. Mosley, Solicitor-General, Steven K. Snider, Adrienne D. Nash, Assistant Solicitors-General, for appellee.
Andrews, McFADDEN, Ray.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 41%
McFADDEN, Judge.

After a jury trial, Raoul Fraser was convicted of simple battery/ family violence. He appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting testimony concerning prior difficulties. However, Fraser did not object to the testimony and has not shown plain error. Accordingly, we affirm.

Construed in favor of the verdict, evidence presented at trial showed that on January 10, 2013, Fraser assaulted his former live-in girlfriend. He cursed at her, pushed her, grabbed her throat, shoved her to the ground, got on top of her, and choked her. When a neighbor arrived at the scene, Fraser fled.

A police officer who was dispatched to the scene testified that while questioning the victim, she said that on a prior occasion she and Fraser had gotten into an argument and Fraser had attempted to kill her. Although Fraser had raised an earlier hearsay objection to other testimony, he did not object to this testimony by the officer about the prior incident.

“Georgia ‘has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.’ [Cit.]” Stacey v. State, 292 Ga. 838, 843 (4) (741 SE2d 881) (2013). As noted above, Fraser did not make a contemporaneous objection to the prior incident testimony by the officer. Nevertheless, because the trial in this case occurred after January 1, 2013, we may review the purportedly improper testimony for plain error. See[*2] Rembert v. State, 324 Ga. App. 146, 152 (2), n. 8 (749 SE2d 744) (2013) (“Georgia’s new Evidence Code, which applies to cases tried after January 1, 2013, allows a court to consider ‘plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court.’ OCGA § 24-1-103 (d).”).

Decided September 3, 2014. King, King & Jones, David H. Jones, for appellant. Tasha M. Mosley, Solicitor-General, Steven K. Snider, Adrienne D. Nash, Assistant Solicitors-General, for appellee.

“A finding of plain error requires a clear or obvious legal error or defect not affirmatively waived by the appellant that must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, i.e., it affected the outcome of the trial-court proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Taylor v. State, 327 Ga. App. 882, 890 (8) (761 SE2d 426) (2014). Here, even assuming, without deciding, that the officer’s testimony about the prior incident was improper, such error did not affect Fraser’s substantial rights since the victim also testified, without objection, about the prior incident and having told the officer about it. Thus, the officer’s “testimony on this point was [merely] cumulative and its admission did not in reasonable probability affect the outcome of the trial.” Johnson v. State, 295 Ga. 421, 426 (3) (761 SE2d 13) (2014). Because Fraser did not object to the testimony and there was no plain error in its admission, we affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

Andrews, P. J., and Ray, J., concur.