Skip to main content

Stephens v. State

Citations

  • 716 S.E.2d 154
  • 289 Ga. 758
  • 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 3067
  • 2011 Ga. LEXIS 707
  • 2011 WL 4532671

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 appellant’s argument in this Court “was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeals,” we “will not address it”
  • noting that a jury question about prior consistent statements or an improper argument that such statements are not valid evidence may constitute grounds for instruction
  • noting that a jury question about prior consistent statements or an improper argument that such statements are not valid evidence may constitute grounds for instruction
  • prior consistent statements are admissible to rebut an “express or implied” charge of recent fabrication
  • pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-1 (a) (5) (A) and OCGA § 42-8-34 (g), trial court was authorized to modify the conditions of probation after orally pronouncing the sentence
  • double jeopardy applies to the sentencing phase of a criminal trial and “prevent[s] a court from imposing additional punishment [when] doing so would upset the defendant’s legitimate expectation of finality in a sentence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nahmias

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

30 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.