King v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. King v. State

    262 Ga. 477 (Ga. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    The court reversed the defendant's original conviction. King v. State, 261 Ga. 534 ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991). The defendant was retried on January 27-29, 1992, and convicted of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony.

  2. Pearson v. State

    277 Ga. 813 (Ga. 2004)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that although portions of prosecutor's closing argument were permissible comments on defendant's flight, other portions were impermissible comments on his pre-arrest silence and failure to come forward

    See also Sims v. State, 268 Ga. 381, 382 (2) ( 489 S.E.2d 809) (1997). Compare King v. State, 261 Ga. 534, 535 (2) ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991) (police officer testifying for prosecution ignored directive not to comment on defendant's character). 5. Pearson urges that his trial counsel was ineffective.

  3. Jackson v. State

    267 Ga. 130 (Ga. 1996)   Cited 37 times

    Jackson moved for a mistrial and enumerates as error the trial court's refusal to grant this motion. A mistrial may be necessary where a veteran police officer refers to a defendant's prior incarceration after being instructed not to. King v. State, 261 Ga. 534, 535-536 (2) ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991). Compare Matthews v. State, 258 Ga. 144, 145 (2) ( 366 S.E.2d 280) (1988).

  4. Jackson v. the State

    302 Ga. App. 412 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 8 times
    Focusing on the strong prejudicial impact of an improper reference to the defendant's incarceration in reversing the trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial

    Hensley v. State, 300 Ga. App. 136, 137 ( 684 SE2d 673) (2009). Relying on King v. State, 261 Ga. 534 ( 407 SE2d 733) (1991) and like cases, Jackson argues the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial. In King, two of the State's witnesses referred to the defendant's prior incarceration after having been specially instructed not to mention that the defendant had been in jail.

  5. Pitts v. State

    260 Ga. App. 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 22 times
    Affirming conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute based upon evidence that 28 grams of marijuana divided into five individual packages was found with a large, distribution amount of another illegal drug

    Gearin v. State, 208 Ga. App. at 881-882(2). I believe that Pitts has carried his burden of demonstrating prejudice by counsel's oversight and that, absent this oversight, there is at least a reasonable probability that Pitts would not have been convicted by this jury or, given the trial court's prior ruling that this prejudicial evidence was inadmissible, that the trial court would have granted a timely motion for mistrial. King v. State, 261 Ga. 534, 535-536(2) ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991) (mistrial required when officer, immediately after being told not to mention defendant's previous jail term, testified that defendant had just been released from jail); Gearin v. State, 208 Ga. App. at 882(2) (trial court erred in denying motion for mistrial after wrongful admission of evidence of other crimes); Hancock v. State, 210 Ga. App. at 529-530(2) (finding admission of bad character evidence was harmful error as a matter of law); see also Owens v. State, 250 Ga. App. at 62 (evidence of bad character not sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial). Accordingly, I would reverse Pitts' convictions and remand for retrial.

  6. Torres v. State

    258 Ga. App. 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 7 times

    OCGA § 24-9-20(b). See generally King v. State, 261 Ga. 534, 535-536(2) ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991); Chavous v. State, 205 Ga. App. 455, 456-457(2) ( 422 S.E.2d 327) (1992) (law officer cannot be allowed to avoid the clear intent of the court's instructions by relating excluded information to the jury in another fashion); see also Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640, 642(2)(b) ( 409 S.E.2d 649) (1991) (before any evidence of independent offenses or acts of accused may be admitted into evidence, a hearing must be held pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3(B), at which, the State must affirmatively show, as to each independent offense or act it seeks to introduce, that (1) the State seeks to introduce evidence for some appropriate purpose, deemed to be exception to general rule of inadmissibility, (2) there is sufficient evidence to establish that accused committed independent offense or act, and (3) there is sufficient connection or similarity between independent offense or act and crime charged so that proof of former tends to prove latter). We review

  7. Owens v. State

    250 Ga. App. 61 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    Also, Owens later explained to the jury that he was on parole because of traffic violations. King v. State, 261 Ga. 534, 535 ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991).Judgment affirmed.

  8. Brinson v. State

    243 Ga. App. 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 9 times

    We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in this case. These apparently inadvertent comments do not rise to the level of misconduct condemned in King v. State, 261 Ga. 534, 535 ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991). See Martin v. State, 193 Ga. App. 581, 584 ( 388 S.E.2d 420) (1989).

  9. Starks v. State

    240 Ga. App. 346 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Concluding that curative instruction was sufficient when no specific instruction had been given to the officer witness regarding the objectionable testimony

    The trial court denied the defense motion for a mistrial but gave a curative instruction. This court reversed, holding that the case was controlled by King v. State, 261 Ga. 534-536(2) ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991), in which an officer's failure to comply with a previous ruling prohibiting mention of the defendant's prior jail term required reversal of the denial of the motion for mistrial. In this case, no specific instruction or ruling was violated.

  10. Gazaway v. State

    436 S.E.2d 738 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    She explained that they reached this decision because of the fact that harmful fingerprint evidence linking Gazaway to the crimes had been excluded from evidence in that trial, but would be admissible in any subsequent trial. Pretermitting the substantive issues involved in a motion for mistrial on this basis, see, e.g., King v. State, 261 Ga. 534 (2) ( 407 S.E.2d 733) (1991); Chavous v. State, 205 Ga. App. 455 (2) ( 422 S.E.2d 327) (1992) (in which testifying officers failed to comply with court orders barring certain testimony), we find no error. "Trial strategy and tactics do not equate with ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct. . . . [D]efendant made no affirmative showing that purported deficiencies in his trial counsel's representation were indicative of ineffectiveness and were not examples of a conscious and deliberate trial strategy.