Jenkins v. Lee

3 Citing cases

  1. Herrington v. State

    364 Ga. App. 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The state argues that the trial court's comment in the jury charge did not violate OCGA § 17-8-57 (a) (1) because the question of whether Herrington was in custody when he gave his statement at the police station was not a disputed fact at issue in this case. See Jenkins v. State , 354 Ga. App. 674, 679 (3), 839 S.E.2d 698 (2020) ("a statement by a trial court concerning a fact that is uncontested or is not in dispute does not constitute a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57") (citation and punctuation omitted). This is not quite accurate.

  2. Pattarozzi v. State

    358 Ga. App. 675 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that even if arrest warrant was testimonial and subject to continuing-witness rule, trial counsel's decision not to object to the arrest warrant going to the jury because he believed it showed that such was the only evidence State had was reasonable trial strategy

    However, even assuming trial counsel's decision to allow the arrest warrant to go out with the jury constituted a change in strategy, a decision to change strategy during trial is not necessarily unreasonable. See Jenkins v. State , 354 Ga. App. 674, 682 (5) (c), 839 S.E.2d 698 (2020) (counsel's decision to change strategy was reasonable). At the motion for new trial hearing, Pattarozzi's trial counsel was not asked about any inconsistency between his decision to challenge hearsay statements made by "certain persons in Colorado" and his decision not to object to the arrest warrant going out with the jury.

  3. Broadwater v. State

    359 Ga. App. 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Young v. State , 309 Ga. 529, 542 (5), 847 S.E.2d 347 (2020). See also Jenkins v. State , 354 Ga. App. 674, 682 (5) (e), 839 S.E.2d 698 (2020) (rejecting the defendant's cumulative error claim where the alleged errors were insufficient to show a reasonable probability that the results of the trial would have been different in the absence of the alleged errors). Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, we affirm the trial court's denial of Broadwater's motion for new trial.