§

Gathuru v. State

291 Ga. App. 178 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)
Gathuru v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Fouts v. State

    322 Ga. App. 261 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Finding no likelihood that the omission of a specific charge on criminal negligence affected the outcome of the trial and that there was thus no plain error, and, accordingly, finding that the appellant failed to show that trial counsel's failure to request such a charge fell outside the range of reasonable professional conduct and thus failed to show counsel was ineffective on this ground

    When a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to request certain jury charges, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different if the requested charges had been given. See Gathuru v. State, 291 Ga.App. 178, 182(3), 661 S.E.2d 233 (2008). As set forth above in Division 3, the trial court properly charged the jury on first and second degree vehicular homicide, and a charge on criminal negligence would not have helped the jury distinguish the two offenses.

  2. Fouts v. State

    A13A0446 (Ga. Ct. App. Jun. 14, 2013)

    When a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to request certain jury charges, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different if the requested charges had been given. See Gathuru v. State, 291 Ga. App. 178, 182 (3) (661 SE2d 233) (2008). As set forth above in Division 3, the trial court properly charged the jury on first and second degree vehicular homicide, and a charge on criminal negligence would not have helped the jury distinguish the two offenses.

  3. Woods v. State

    361 Ga. App. 259 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gathuru v. State , 291 Ga. App. 178, 182 (3), 661 S.E.2d 233 (2008). "[W]here there is any evidence, however slight, upon a particular point, it is not error to charge the law in relation to that issue."

  4. White v. State

    312 Ga. App. 421 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that O.C.G.A. § 17-7-54 contains “no express requirement that the indictment contain a written statement that it was received in ‘open court,' or that it be signed.”

    See Collier, supra, 288 Ga. at 758–759(4), 707 S.E.2d 102. Notwithstanding White's waiver of this asserted error, we find that the trial court's charge, when read and considered as a whole, did not mislead the jury. See Gathuru v. State, 291 Ga.App. 178, 179(1), 661 S.E.2d 233 (2008). “[W]here a [jury] charge as a whole substantially presents issues in such a way as is not likely to confuse the jury even though a portion of the charge may not be as clear and precise as could be desired, a reviewing court will not disturb a verdict [which is] amply authorized by the evidence.”

  5. Taylor v. State

    306 Ga. App. 175 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times
    Explaining that the defendant "was convicted of possession of MDMA (‘Ecstasy’)" (footnote omitted)

    (Footnote omitted.) Gathuru v. State, 291 Ga. App. 178, 182 (3) ( 661 SE2d 233) (2008). We review the trial court's determination of the effectiveness of counsel under the clearly erroneous standard.

  6. Robinson v. State

    679 S.E.2d 61 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    He contends the recharge persuaded the jury to believe the detective's statements, instead of considering the lack of evidence that would create "countless holes in his story." We review jury charges as a whole, and if the charge substantially presents issues in a way unlikely to confuse a jury, we will not disturb a verdict amply authorized by the evidence, even if a portion of the charge is not as clear as possible. Gathuru v. State, 291 Ga. App. 178, 180 ( 661 SE2d 233) (2008); Herrin v. State, 229 Ga. App. 260, 262 ( 493 SE2d 634) (1997). The necessity, extent, and character of any supplemental instruction to the jury are matters within the trial court's sound discretion.

  7. Parker v. State

    673 S.E.2d 334 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)

    White, 291 Ga. App. at 251-252. See Pincherli v. State, 295 Ga. App. 408, 413 (3) (c) ( 671 SE2d 891) (2008); Gathuru v. State, 291 Ga. App. 178, 181 (1) ( 661 SE2d 233) (2008).Judgment affirmed.

  8. Wilhite v. State

    337 Ga. App. 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gathuru v. State , 291 Ga.App. 178, 182, 661 S.E.2d 233 (2008). And if the defendant fails to meet his burden on one prong of this two-prong test, we need not review the other prong. Wright v. State , 291 Ga. 869, 870, 734 S.E.2d 876 (2012).