Skip to main content

Allen v. State

Citations

  • 296 Ga. 785
  • 770 S.E.2d 824
  • 2015 Ga. LEXIS 191

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that right to confront accusers was not violated where “no substance of any supposed statements was placed before the jury by the detectives’ reference”
  • determining that the “omnibus justification defense” under OCGA § 16-3-20 (6) was identical to the defense of coercion (citation and punctuation omitted)
  • finding no abuse of discretion 3 Appellant did not argue in the trial court that Cox’s conduct was a statement covered by the court’s order. See OCGA § 24-8-801 (a) (2) (defining “[s]tatement” to include “[n]onverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion”
  • “The detectives did not identify the ‘buddies’ mentioned, and no substance of any supposed statements was placed before the jury by the detectives’ reference.”
  • A jury instruction on justification under OCGA § 16-3-20 (6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hines

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.