Hilliard v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Shutt v. State

    451 S.E.2d 530 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    Id. at 244. However, we must view the trial court's charge as a whole, and in Hilliard v. State, 211 Ga. App. 842, 843 ( 440 S.E.2d 729) (1994), we specifically approved of such a charge where the trial court limited the use of the similar transaction evidence to the stated purpose. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's charge herein.

  2. Davis v. State

    443 S.E.2d 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 3 times

    No Georgia court has determined that the charge given herein is constitutionally deficient so as to warrant reversal. See id.; Hicks v. State, 262 Ga. 756 (3) ( 425 S.E.2d 877) (1993); Hilliard v. State, 211 Ga. App. 842 ( 440 S.E.2d 729) (1994); Dominick v. State, 209 Ga. App. 319 (2) ( 433 S.E.2d 405) (1993); Oliver v. State, 207 Ga. App. 681 (2) ( 428 S.E.2d 681) (1993). Davis next argues that the combined impact of the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 ( 111 SC 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339) (1990) and Sullivan v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___ (113 SC 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182) (1993) require that we find the trial court's charge constituted reversible error.