Hardin v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Browning v. State

    254 Ga. 478 (Ga. 1985)   Cited 15 times

    Birge v. State, supra, 238 Ga. at 90." Hardin v. State, 251 Ga. 533 ( 307 S.E.2d 669) (1983). In Hardin v. State, id., we declined to apply the standards set forth in Birge to a defendant convicted of murder, a capital felony.

  2. Johnson v. State

    304 Ga. 369 (Ga. 2018)   Cited 7 times
    In Johnson v. State, 304 Ga. 369, 818 S.E.2d 601 (2018) ("Johnson II "), this Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Johnson's request for a supersedeas bond during the pendency of the State's appeal of the grant of Johnson's motion for new trial.

    In 1983, still before OCGA § 17-6-1 (g) was enacted, this Court declined to apply the Birge standards to a defendant convicted of the capital crime of murder or even to adopt any other standards, because such defendants should be treated differently due to the more heinous nature of the crime. Hardin v. State , 251 Ga. 533, 534, 307 S.E.2d 669 (1983). Hardin made it clear that "whether to grant a defendant bond on [his] appeal following conviction for murder is a matter committed entirely to the discretion of the trial court" and that "the mere fact that the defendant stands convicted of murder is sufficient in and of itself to explain why an appeal bond is denied."

  3. Haney v. Development Authority

    271 Ga. 403 (Ga. 1999)   Cited 10 times

    The issue is whether the trial court correctly concluded that it was in the "public interest" to require a surety bond in this validation proceeding. See Ebon Foundation v. Oatman, 269 Ga. 340 ( 498 S.E.2d 728) (1998); Hardin v. State, 251 Ga. 533 ( 307 S.E.2d 669) (1983); Reid v. Reid, 246 Ga. 592 ( 272 S.E.2d 685) (1980). Because we reverse the surety bond order based on our interpretation of the "public interest," we need not address whether the trial court erred in setting the bond at three million dollars based on the authority's evidence of damages and costs.

  4. Ayala v. State

    262 Ga. 704 (Ga. 1993)   Cited 22 times
    Holding state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial court should deny bail to secure the defendant's appearance in court or to protect the community

    We have held, for example, that the ABA Standards on release pending appeal do not apply in capital felony cases and that a trial court need not give any reasons for denying an appeal bond to a convicted murderer. Hardin v. State, 251 Ga. 533, 534 ( 307 S.E.2d 669) (1983). The defendant's conviction rebuts the prior presumption of innocence and justifies requiring the defendant to bear the burden of convincing the court to grant an appeal bond.

  5. Luther v. State

    342 S.E.2d 316 (Ga. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    Contrary to the appellant's argument, the distinction between murder and other offenses is constitutionally permissive. "The denomination of certain crimes as capital felonies is an expression of our society's view that these crimes are more heinous than other classes of crimes, with murder being the most heinous of all capital felonies. It follows that defendants convicted of capital felonies, particularly murder, should be and are treated differently than defendants convicted of non-capital felonies and misdemeanors." Hardin v. State, 251 Ga. 533, 534 ( 307 S.E.2d 669) (1983). This court has held that more stringent procedural limitations may be applied to capital felonies than other crimes without offending the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.