Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Rivera v. State

23 Citing cases

  1. Belcher v. State

    812 S.E.2d 51 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the defendant failed to show plain error from the improper admission of a witness’ testimony about threats received from the co-defendant's father, where, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the defendant could not show that the error likely affected the outcome of his trial proceedings

    Smith , 299 Ga. at 431 (2) (d), 788 S.E.2d 433 ; see OCGA § 24-1-103 (a) ("Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected....").Smith , 299 Ga. at 432 (2) (d), 788 S.E.2d 433 (punctuation omitted); accord Rivera v. State , 295 Ga. 380, 382 (2), 761 S.E.2d 30 (2014).Smith , 299 Ga. at 432 (2) (d), 788 S.E.2d 433 (punctuation omitted); accord Rivera , 295 Ga. at 382 (2), 761 S.E.2d 30.

  2. Belcher v. State

    A17A1982 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2018)

    Smith, 299 Ga. at 431 (2) (d); see OCGA § 24-1-103 (a) ("Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected . . . ."). Smith, 299 Ga. at 432 (2) (d) (punctuation omitted); accord Rivera v. State, 295 Ga. 380, 382 (2) (761 SE2d 30) (2014). Smith, 299 Ga. at 432 (2) (d) (punctuation omitted); accord Rivera, 295 Ga. at 382 (2).

  3. Taylor v. State

    308 Ga. 57 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Nevertheless, neither the prosecutor’s closing remarks nor Detective Cooper’s testimony (to the extent it was improperly admitted) rises to the level of reversible error. See Rivera v. State, 295 Ga. 380, 382 (2), 761 S.E.2d 30 (2014) ("The test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict." (Citation and punctuation omitted)).

  4. Naples v. State

    308 Ga. 43 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that it was not error to admit testimony from six witnesses about the appellant's abuse of his children

    We need not decide this question, however, because even if the admission of the other-acts evidence concerning the three adult victims was erroneous, this error was harmless. See Rivera v. State, 295 Ga. 380, 382 (2), 761 S.E.2d 30 (2014) ("The test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict." (Citation and punctuation omitted)).

  5. Swims v. State

    307 Ga. 651 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for mistrial after a, witness made a "passing reference" to the appellant’s incarceration "for an unstated crime," when the testimony was "an unexpected answer to the question asked by the prosecutor" and the prosecutor "did not inquire further in [the appellant’s] crimes"

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Rivera v. State , 295 Ga. 380, 382 (2), 761 S.E.2d 30 (2014). See also former OCGA § 24-2-2.

  6. Kirby v. State

    304 Ga. 472 (Ga. 2018)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that the State's proffer of other-acts evidence showing the defendant's " ‘inclination’ to use violence to obtain money and sex ... is a classic improper propensity argument, ... identifying his motive to act in far too generic a fashion"

    " ‘The test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.’ " Rivera v. State, 295 Ga. 380, 382, 761 S.E.2d 30 (2014) (citation omitted). See also OCGA § 24-1-103 (a) ("Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected....").

  7. Timmons v. State

    302 Ga. 464 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 16 times

    Smith v. State , supra at 432 (2), 788 S.E.2d 433. See also Rivera v. State , 295 Ga. 380, 382 (2), 761 S.E.2d 30 (2014). Accordingly, a new trial is not authorized on this ground.

  8. Jones v. State

    301 Ga. 544 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that trial court's error in admitting defendant's prior DUI conviction in prosecution for DUI per se—given that its prejudicial impact substantially outweighed its probative value—was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt to the DUI-per se charge

    . . “In determining whether the error was harmless, we review the record de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done so.” Rivera v. State, 295 Ga. 380 , 382 (761 SE2d 30 ) (2014). “The test for determining nonconstitu-tional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.”

  9. Smith v. State

    299 Ga. 424 (Ga. 2016)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that any error in admitting evidence which appeared to have aided the defense was harmless

    “In determining whether the error was harmless, we review the record de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done so.” Rivera v. State , 295 Ga. 380, 382, 761 S.E.2d 30 (2014). “The test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.”

  10. Russell v. State

    295 Ga. 899 (Ga. 2014)   Cited 4 times
    Declining to decide whether trial court erred by refusing to allow defendant to show a full video recording of forensic interview to refresh child witness's recollection

    Accordingly, it is highly probable that any error in this regard did not contribute to the jury's verdict. See generally Rivera v. State, 295 Ga. 380(2), 761 S.E.2d 30 (2014). 6. As to Russell's remaining enumeration regarding the admission of evidence regarding the February 2002 MARTA station incident, we note as an initial matter that Russell failed to object at trial on the grounds he now asserts.