 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Best v. State, A06A0360.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An officer's testimony that the amount of cocaine in a bag in defendant's possession was inconsistent with personal use, and that the cocaine was packaged for distribution, sufficiently supported defendant's conviction of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30.
|
|||||
| Delph v. State, A06A0257.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's plea to a charge arising from an earlier incident with a carpet cleaner did not preclude prosecution for later assault on his girlfriend. The crimes were separated in time, involved different victims, and did not arise from the same conduct. Thus, O.C.G.A. § 16-1-7(b) did not require them to be brought in a single prosecution.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of K.W., A06A0586.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's admission to methamphetamine use during a pending protective services investigation, when her children had recently come into her care, and after she agreed to a drug screen, allowed inference that mother had chronic drug problem which adversely affected her children, and supported deprivation finding under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2(8)(A).
|
|||||
| King v. State, A06A0146.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Advice of counsel as whether or not to testify was trial strategy and generally not subject to challenge for ineffectiveness. Defendant presented no evidence that his counsel prevented him from making his own decision about testifying, and thus failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
| Little v. State of Ga., A06A1144.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's mother and father failed to present clear and convincing proof of their innocent-owner status as to their truck and cell phone, which their son used on two separate occasions to effectuate the sale of marijuana, an order of forfeiture was properly entered against them and was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Interbay Funding, LLC, A06A0630.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When they stopped making monthly mortgage payments, borrowers were in default on their mortgage, and mortgage holder was authorized to accelerate the debt and to foreclose when borrowers failed to cure the default. Even if a dispute existed as to liability for additional money, borrowers were obligated to pay monthly sum they admittedly owed.
|
|||||
| Navarro v. State, A06A0537.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aggravated assault and cruelty to children convictions were upheld, as (1) suppression of defendant's statements was unwarranted; (2) the prosecutor's closing arguments were not prejudicial; (3) the trial court's instructions to the jury were proper and supported by the evidence; and (4) defendant failed to show that his counsel was ineffective.
|
|||||
| State v. Henley, A06A0896.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under facts in affidavit, including defendant's admission that he received and viewed tapes known to contain child pornography, a magistrate was authorized to make a judgment that there was a fair probability that defendant's computer contained illegal images. Ruling that warrant improperly authorized seizure of computer equipment was error.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
