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.
§

Tolbert v. State

239 Ga. App. 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Tolbert v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Carter v. State

    266 Ga. App. 691 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant failed to establish unavailability when appellant relied upon three attempts to serve a subpoena, declined an offered continuance, and “otherwise only speculat[ed] that [the witness] might be in Florida and indicat[ed] that the State sought him as well”

    The testimony of a witness . . . inaccessible for any cause which was given under oath on a formal trial upon substantially the same issue and between substantially the same parties may be proved by anyone who heard it and who professes to remember the substance of the entire testimony as to the particular matter about which he testifies. A finding regarding the inaccessibility of a witness and a party's diligence in searching for a witness lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent a manifest abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. Tolbert v. State, 239 Ga. App. 703, 704 (1) ( 521 SE2d 827) (1999). To establish witness McGee's inaccessibility at trial and diligence in searching for him, Carter showed only that, between late January and early March 2002, he had three times attempted to serve a subpoena upon McGee prior to trial — this approximately six months after his arraignment in recorder's court. At a pretrial hearing, the superior court offered Carter a continuance for the purpose of further searching for McGee. This Carter declined.

  2. Brannen v. State

    586 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 5 times
    Declining to consider the portion of delay that had already been the subject of a speedy trial appeal on ground that its prejudice to defendant already had been litigated

    Nelson v. State, 226 Ga. App. 93, 94 ( 485 S.E.2d 582) (1997).Tolbert v. State, 239 Ga. App. 703, 704(1) ( 521 S.E.2d 827) (1999) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-3-10 when State presented evidence that sheriff began attempts to serve subpoenas two weeks before trial and discovered that witness had moved). See McKinney v. State, 250 Ga. App. 22, 24 ( 549 S.E.2d 164) (2001) ("Any prejudice which results merely from the passage of time cannot create the requisite prejudice.

  3. C F Svcs., Inc. v. First Southern Bank

    573 S.E.2d 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 6 times

    (Citations omitted.) Tolbert v. State, 239 Ga. App. 703, 704(1) ( 521 S.E.2d 827) (1999). Under the circumstances presented, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence upon finding that C F had failed to exercise due diligence.

  4. Battle v. State

    536 S.E.2d 761 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    He does not challenge other aspects of admissibility under the necessity exception. See Tolbert v. State, 239 Ga. App. 703, 704 (1) ( 521 S.E.2d 827) (1999). Id.