Hambrick v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Waller v. State

    368 Ga. App. 378 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fincher v. State , 363 Ga. App. 439, 455 (8), 870 S.E.2d 833 (2022). (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hambrick v. State , 278 Ga. App. 768, 770 (3), 629 S.E.2d 442 (2006). (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 772 (3), 629 S.E.2d 442.

  2. Cherry v. State

    642 S.E.2d 369 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 12 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hambrick v. State, 278 Ga. App. 768, 772 (3) ( 629 SE2d 442) (2006). Viewing the statements at issue in their context, it is apparent that when the prosecutor made them, she was addressing the lack of physical injury or eyewitnesses to corroborate the girls' testimony.

  3. Brown v. State

    750 S.E.2d 453 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)

    The prosecutor's remark was an isolated comment during his explanation of the cycle of violence within Brown's and Miller's relationship. The State's single, off-hand comment does not rise to the level of egregiousness necessary to establish prejudice under Strickland. See Hambrick v. State, 278 Ga.App. 768, 771–772(3), 629 S.E.2d 442 (2006). Compare with Williams, 261 Ga.App. at 517–518(3), 583 S.E.2d 172.

  4. Long v. State

    324 Ga. App. 882 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Regarding notice of State's intent to introduce evidence of a similar crime or transaction

    This claim has no merit because the victim testified and both parties were therefore entitled to prove her prior consistent and inconsistent statements. Hambrick v. State, 278 Ga.App. 768, 769–770(2), 629 S.E.2d 442 (2006). See also Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 696(13), 362 S.E.2d 351 (1987).

  5. Brown v. State

    750 S.E.2d 453 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The prosecutor's remark was an isolated comment during his explanation of the cycle of violence within Brown's and Miller's relationship. The State's single, off-hand comment does not rise to the level of egregiousness necessary to establish prejudice under Strickland. See Hambrick v. State, 278 Ga.App. 768, 771–772(3), 629 S.E.2d 442 (2006). Compare with Williams, 261 Ga.App. at 517–518(3), 583 S.E.2d 172.

  6. Murray v. State

    677 S.E.2d 745 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Hines v. State, 246 Ga. App. 835, 837 (3) ( 541 SE2d 410) (2000).Hambrick v. State, 278 Ga. App. 768, 770 (3) ( 629 SE2d 442) (2006).Lupoe v. State, 284 Ga. 576, 579 (3) (f) ( 669 SE2d 133) (2008).

  7. Collins v. State

    283 Ga. App. 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that intent may be inferred because "the incident occurred during a heated argument" and because of the perpetrator’s "subsequent flight" as well as from other acts evidence admitted to prove intent

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hambrick v. State, 278 Ga. App. 768, 772 (3) ( 629 SE2d 442) (2006). And, because the statement was not improper, it can provide no basis for an ineffective assistance claim.