Acey v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Veasey v. State

    311 Ga. App. 762 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that a step-two explanation must be not only race-neutral but also concrete, tangible, case-related, and neutrally applied

    And when the transcript or record โ€œdoes not fully disclose what transpired at trial, the burden is on the complaining party to have the record completed in the trial court under the provisions of OCGA ยง 5โ€“6โ€“41.โ€ Acey v. State, 281 Ga.App. 197, 201(3), 635 S.E.2d 814 (2006) (citation and punctuation omitted). Thus, โ€œwe are hampered in our efforts to fully analyze this issue because voir dire was not transcribed.โ€

  2. Wright v. State

    285 Ga. 428 (Ga. 2009)   Cited 32 times

    First, when a defendant fails to comply with discovery requirements under OCGA ยง 17-16-1 et seq., and specifically that of witness disclosure, the trial court may, under certain circumstances, prohibit the defendant from presenting the witness not disclosed. OCGA ยง 17-16-6;Acey v. State, 281 Ga. App. 197, 199 (2) ( 635 SE2d 814) (2006); Clark v. State, 271 Ga. App. 534, 536 ( 610 SE2d 165) (2005). However, pretermitting the question of the propriety of excluding Hunter's testimony because of discovery violations by the defense, there was no showing that "false confession theory" and the "Reid method" satisfied the evidentiary test in criminal cases set forth in Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 (1) ( 292 SE2d 389) (1982).

  3. Hudson v. State

    284 Ga. 595 (Ga. 2008)   Cited 17 times
    Finding no deficient performance and, thus, no ineffective assistance where, despite good faith efforts, trial counsel failed to locate a potential witness about whom counsel had only limited information prior to trial

    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Turner's testimony. See Acey v. State, 281 Ga. App. 197 (2) ( 635 SE2d 814) (2006) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of defense witnesses where defense knew of witnesses prior to trial and intended to call them to testify but did not disclose witnesses to State until day of trial). 4. Hudson claims that the trial court erred when it charged the jury on both the defenses of self-defense and accident.

  4. Evans v. State

    360 Ga. App. 596 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 9 times

    In this case, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing the defense to question the witness outside the presence of the jury, rather than declaring a mistrial or excluding the evidence. See Davis v. State , 307 Ga. 746, 754 3, 838 S.E.2d 263 2020 (denial of mistrial reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed unless it is essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial); Acey v. State , 281 Ga. App. 197, 200 (2), (635 S.E.2d 814) (2006) (court not required to consider any particular course of action in any particular order, but has discretion to take corrective action it deems appropriate). "Indeed, under ยง 17-16-6, the severe sanction of exclusion of evidence applies only where there has been a showing of bad faith by the [s]tate and prejudice to the defense."

  5. Vaughn v. State

    706 S.E.2d 137 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    " (Punctuation omitted.) Acey v. State, 281 Ga. App. 197, 199-200 ( 635 SE2d 814) (2006). Hill v. State, 232 Ga. App. 561 ( 502 SE2d 505) (1998), relied on by Vaughn, is not on point.

  6. In Interest of D. M

    307 Ga. App. 751 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction when State showed that defendant wore a black bandana during commission of crime, and expert testimony established that wearing a black bandana "was a proclamation that the shooting was a gang act"

    Accordingly, we remand the case to the juvenile court for a hearing and ruling on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Acey v. State, 281 Ga. App. 197, 203 (4) ( 635 SE2d 814) (2006). Judgment affirmed and case remanded with direction.

  7. Manaois v. State

    684 S.E.2d 315 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times
    Deciding not to seek a continuance was reasonable trial strategy

    See Downs v. State, 257 Ga. App. 696, 699 (3) ( 572 SE2d 54) (2002). Compare Acey v. State, 281 Ga. App. 197, 199-200 (2) ( 635 SE2d 814) (2006) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of defense witnesses where defense knew of witnesses prior to trial and intended to call them to testify but did not disclose them to the state until trial). 4. Manaois contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for a continuance to search for "Nicole."

  8. Theophile v. State

    672 S.E.2d 479 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 5 times

    The transcript of the hearing on the motion for new trial has been omitted from the record on appeal. Although the notice of appeal designates that nothing shall be omitted from the record on appeal and that a transcript of evidence and proceedings would be filed, appellate counsel subsequently informed the court that a transcript of the new trial hearing would not be included in the appellate record. See Acey v. State, 281 Ga. App. 197, 200 (2) ( 635 SE2d 814) (2006).Sullivan v. State, 242 Ga. App. 839, 841 (4) ( 531 SE2d 367) (2000); accord Walker v. State, 268 Ga. App. 669, 673 (4) (a) ( 602 SE2d 351) (2004).

  9. Dewberry v. State

    670 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    In an unpublished opinion, this court found no error and affirmed the trial court's decision that the verdict was not contrary to the evidence, but remanded the case to the trial court to consider Dewberry's allegation regarding ineffectiveness of counsel because that error had not been raised in the trial court. See Acey v. State, 281 Ga. App. 197, 203 (4) ( 635 SE2d 814) (2006). On remand, the trial court denied Dewberry's motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and this appeal followed.

  10. Bills v. State

    283 Ga. App. 660 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 5 times
    Finding appellate allegation of error in prosecutor's closing argument not preserved for review where defendant did not raise that specific objection at trial

    Garrison v. State, 273 Ga. App. 446, 447 ( 615 SE2d 253) (2005).Acey v. State, 281 Ga. App. 197, 198 (1) ( 635 SE2d 814) (2006), quoting OCGA ยง 24-9-80. See also Feldman, supra.