Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Harper v. State

222 Ga. App. 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Harper v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Ganas v. State

    245 Ga. App. 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 32 times
    In Ganas v. State, 245 Ga.App. 645, 537 S.E.2d 758, 762 (2000), the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that a trial court did not "abuse its discretion in precluding questions concerning the burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence, for these are technical legal questions on which the [trial] court will instruct at the end of trial."

    Finally, because questions should be confined to those designed to elicit possible prejudice against the accused or juror bias or interest in the outcome, the court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in disallowing the remaining disputed questions. White v. State, 230 Ga. 327, 337 (5) (a) ( 196 S.E.2d 849) (1973); Harper v. State, 222 Ga. App. 393, 393-394 ( 474 S.E.2d 288) (1996).Cox v. State, 248 Ga. 713 (3) ( 285 S.E.2d 687) (1982);Harper, supra, 222 Ga. App. at 394; Smith v. State, 148 Ga. App. 1 (1) ( 251 S.E.2d 13) (1978).

  2. Childers v. State

    228 Ga. App. 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 8 times

    [Cits.]" Harper v. State, 222 Ga. App. 393, ( 474 S.E.2d 288) (1996). We have reviewed the questions about which appellant complains and find that each of them properly explored "any fact or circumstance indicating any inclination, leaning, or bias which the juror might have respecting the subject matter of the action," domestic violence, including "any opinion as to which party ought to prevail."

  3. Baker v. State

    157 Md. App. 600 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004)   Cited 50 times
    Holding an objection to omission of proposed voir dire questions was preserved where defense counsel declined to be heard on the omission of the questions but "requested that a copy of his proposed voir dire be put into the court's file" and the court "told defense counsel that a copy was already in the court file and noted the exceptions"

    See, e.g., State v. Cere, 125 N.H. 421, 480 A.2d 195 (1984); People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472, 83 Ill.Dec. 128, 469 N.E.2d 1062 (1984); State v. Lumumba, 253 N.J. Super 375, 601 A.2d 1178 (1992); Jones v. State, 378 So.2d 797 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1980); United States v. Blount, 479 F.2d 650 (6th Cir. 1973). Other courts have reached the same conclusion as Maryland See, e.g., Harper v. State, 222 Ga. App. 393, 394, 474 S.E.2d 288, 289 (1996); State v. Dahlgren, 200 Conn. 586, 602-03, 512 A.2d 906, 915 (1986); United States v. Beckman, 222 F.3d 512, 519-20 (8th Cir.2000); United States v. Robinson, 804 F.2d 280, 281 (4th Cir.1986); United States v. Miller, 758 F.2d 570, 573 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 994, 106 S.Ct. 406, 88 L.Ed.2d 357 (1985). In any event, it is up to the Court of Appeals, not this Court, to decide, as appellant suggests, that the reasoning of Twining is "now outmoded."