Linson v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the court’s comments regarding the playing of a videotaped interview were limited to “a clarification of procedures and did not address the credibility of witnesses or any fact at issue in the trial,” they did not violateOCGA § 17-8-57
• holding that because the court’s comments regarding the playing of a videotaped interview were limited to “a clarification of procedures and did not address the credibility of witnesses or any fact at issue in the trial,” they did violate OCGA § 17-8-57
• no violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 where trial judge informed jury that video had been redacted to include only relevant portions
• “Such reversal is required, though, only when such comments are made in the presence of the jury.”
• “Such reversal is required, though, only when such comments are made in the presence of the jury.”
• “If the same conduct established the commission of both offenses, it is necessary to take the next step in the analysis by applying the required evidence test for determining when one offense is included in another.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).