Pollard v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Griffin v. State

    381 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    See County Court of Ulster County, N. Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (99 SC 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777) (1979)." Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21, 22 (2) ( 287 S.E.2d 189). Defendant's reliance upon Powell v. State, 187 Ga. App. 878, 879 (4), 880 ( 372 S.E.2d 234) is misplaced. "The law does not draw `conclusions' as to intent or other factual matters.

  2. Daniel v. State

    301 Ga. 783 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that counsel are "certainly permitted to hypothesize about what may have occurred"

    The jury is thus allowed, but not required, to infer an ultimate fact from proof of a basic fact. See Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21 , 22 (2) (287 SE2d 189 ) (1982). “It places no burden on the defendant; it merely advises and guides the jury as to what conclusions they might draw from circumstantial evidence presented at trial.”

  3. Isaacs v. State

    259 Ga. 717 (Ga. 1989)   Cited 139 times
    Finding no improper restriction on questions concerning parole during voir dire

    We do not see how the charge implies anything about the burden of proof, and find no error in the charge. (d) The court's charge on flight was not erroneous. Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21 (3) ( 287 S.E.2d 189) (1982). 36. Isaacs contends that certain slide photographs admitted in evidence at the sentencing phase of the trial were not sufficiently authenticated.

  4. Conklin v. State

    254 Ga. 558 (Ga. 1985)   Cited 77 times
    Rejecting the argument that murder "terminates at the instant of death, so that nothing that happens afterward can be considered" in determining whether an aggravator exists

    The evidence is amply sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder. Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21 ( 287 S.E.2d 189) (1982); Anderson v. State, 248 Ga. 682 ( 285 S.E.2d 533) (1982); Terry v. State, 243 Ga. 11 ( 252 S.E.2d 429) (1979); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ( 99 S.C. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979). It follows that the trial court did not err by refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal or to present the case to the jury only upon a manslaughter theory.

  5. Dill v. State

    325 S.E.2d 765 (Ga. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    To demonstrate that he was harmed by the latitude which the instruction allegedly afforded the jury, Dill speculates that the jury may have been biased against husbands who kill their wives during domestic squabbles. He further speculates that the jurors may have thought that it could deter further homicides of this kind by pillorying Dill, and that they therefore based their inference that he intended to kill his wife upon their desire to make an example of him. The instruction in question is substantially the same as a charge which we considered in Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21, 22 (2) ( 287 S.E.2d 189) (1982). In that case the defendant alleged that the instruction was an "unrestrained permissive presumption" violative of due process, but we disagreed, holding that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that the charge violated his due process rights.

  6. Ingram v. State

    253 Ga. 622 (Ga. 1984)   Cited 115 times
    Requiring defendant to strip to his waist and be photographed did not compel self-incrimination

    9. The court's instructions on malice, see OCGA § 16-5-1 (b), and flight were not burden-shifting. Franklin v. State, supra, 245 Ga. 141 (9); Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21 (3) ( 287 S.E.2d 189) (1982). Defendant's 25th enumeration is without merit.

  7. May v. State

    651 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    The charge recited the pattern charge on presumption word for word. See Council of Superior Court Judges, Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II (3d ed. 2006), § 1.41.12, p. 34; Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21, 22 (2) ( 287 SE2d 189) (1982). There was no error here.

  8. Cauthen v. State

    177 Ga. App. 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    [Cit.]" Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21, 22 ( 287 S.E.2d 189) (1982). See also Roberson v. State, 253 Ga. 239, 240 ( 319 S.E.2d 444) (1984).

  9. Heard v. State

    316 S.E.2d 504 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 7 times

    We find no merit in this complaint. See Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21, 22 (3) ( 287 S.E.2d 189); Young v. State, 239 Ga. 53, 58 (4) ( 236 S.E.2d 1). 13. Objection is made that the trial court erred in charging the jury, ". . . But, if a witness shall willfully and knowingly swear falsely, their testimony shall be disregarded entirely, unless corroborated by circumstances or other unimpeached evidence.

  10. Lush v. State

    310 S.E.2d 287 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 10 times

    Farmer v. State, supra. In Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21, 22 ( 287 S.E.2d 189), the Supreme Court stated: "A permissive presumption or inference is one which allows but does not require the jury to infer an ultimate fact from proof of a basic fact. It places no burden on the defendant; it merely advises and guides the jury as to what conclusions they might draw from circumstantial evidence presented at trial. A defendant challenging a permissive presumption or inference must demonstrate its invalidity as it applies to him.