- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Montgomery v. State
315 Ga. 467 (Ga. 2023)4 Citing cases
Brock v. State
906 S.E.2d 739 (Ga. 2024) Cited 1 timesAt times in the past, we have performed a Jackson sufficiency analysis in evaluating the general grounds. See, e.g., Montgomery v. State, 315 Ga. 467, 474 (3), 883 S.E.2d 351 (2023). While many of us "question whether it is proper for this Court to import Jackson into an appellate review of the general grounds," we need not resolve that question here because Appellant raised both claims, and because, as held in Division 2 (a), the evidence against Appellant was constitutionally sufficient to affirm his convictions.
Anderson v. State
901 S.E.2d 543 (Ga. 2024) Cited 2 timesIn the past, when evaluating a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial on the general grounds, we have sometimes reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence as. a matter of constitutional due process under Jackson, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781. See, e.g., Montgomery v. State, 315 Ga. 467, 474 (3), 883 S.E.2d 351 (2023). Many of us "question whether it is proper for this Court to import Jackson into an appellate review of the general grounds."
Thompson v. State
900 S.E.2d 607 (Ga. 2024) Cited 5 timesHolding that "the prosecutor’s comment that ‘there has been no evidence exonerating Appellant, and there has been no evidence pointing to somebody else as being the real killer’ did not improperly shift the burden to Appellant to prove his innocence," and "the statement was therefore not improper"
At times in the past, we have performed a Jackson sufficiency analysis in evaluating the general grounds. See, e.g., Montgomery v. State, 315 Ga. 467, 474 (3), 883 S.E.2d 351 (2023); Bundel v. State, 308 Ga. 317, 318-319 (1), 840 S.E.2d 349 (2020); Lewis v. State, 296 Ga. 259, 261 (3), 765 S.E.2d 911 (2014).Although many of us continue to "question whether it is proper for this Court to import Jackson into an appellate review of the general grounds (or to otherwise rely on Jackson as part of that analysis)," we need not resolve that issue today because Appellant raised both claims and because, as held in Division 2 (a), the evidence against Appellant was constitutionally sufficient to affirm his convictions.
King v. State
316 Ga. 611 (Ga. 2023) Cited 16 timesConcluding that the defendant’s claim under the general grounds failed because the trial court "found that ‘the weight of the evidence does not preponderate heavily against the verdict and the verdict was not contrary to the evidence or the principles of justice and equity’ "
However, in the past, in evaluating a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial on the general grounds, see OCGA §§ 5-5-20 & 5-5-21, we have performed or referenced a constitutional due process sufficiency-of-the-evidence review under Jackson . See, e.g., Montgomery v. State , 315 Ga. 467, 474, 883 S.E.2d 351 (2023) ; Bundel v. State , 308 Ga. 317, 318-319, 840 S.E.2d 349 (2020) ; Lewis v. State , 296 Ga. 259, 261, 765 S.E.2d 911 (2014). But see Caviston v. State , 315 Ga. 279, 282-284, 882 S.E.2d 221 (2022) (limiting the general-grounds analysis to evaluating whether the trial court exercised its discretion when the defendant did not make a Jackson sufficiency argument as part of his general-grounds enumeration or separately).