Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/State v. Hinson

State v. Hinson

506 S.E.2d 870, 269 Ga. 862
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 5, 1998
DocketS98G0468
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 506 S.E.2d 870 (State v. Hinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Hinson, 506 S.E.2d 870, 269 Ga. 862 (Ga. 1998).

Opinions

Carley, Justice.

Fitzgerald Hinson was tried before a jury and found guilty of trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentences, and subsequently denied Hinson’s motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Belt v. State, 227 Ga. App. 425 (1) (489 SE2d 157) (1997) as authority for holding that “the trial court committed reversible error in failing to give, sua sponte, a limiting instruction contemporaneous with the admission of extrinsic acts or similar crimes evidence.” Hinson v. State, 229 Ga. App. 840, 842 (3) (494 SE2d 693) (1997). We granted the State’s petition for certiorari to consider this holding of the Court of Appeals. Here, the trial court gave a limiting instruction during its general charge to the jury. In Belt v. State, supra, the trial court gave no limiting instruction on similar transaction evidence at any time. Even so, this Court reversed the judgment in Belt, holding that, in the absence of a request, a trial court has no obligation to give a limiting instruction regarding similar transaction evidence. State v. Belt, 269 Ga. 763 (505 SE2d 1) (1998). Thus, in this case, the Court of Appeals erred in requiring that a trial court give a contemporaneous limiting instruction without request. Regardless of when the defendant wishes the jury instructed on the limited admissibility of similar transaction evidence, it is incumbent upon him to make a timely request to the trial court for such a charge.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Fletcher, P. J, who dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Massey v. State
702 S.E.2d 34 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Lewis v. State
669 S.E.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Sedlak v. State
571 S.E.2d 721 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002)
Mika v. State
568 S.E.2d 818 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002)
Igidi v. State
554 S.E.2d 773 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Carr v. State
553 S.E.2d 674 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Hardeman v. State
544 S.E.2d 481 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Kirkland v. State
543 S.E.2d 791 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Turner v. State
526 S.E.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Buice v. State
520 S.E.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Yearwood v. State
521 S.E.2d 689 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Morris v. State
520 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Bean v. State
521 S.E.2d 19 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Davidson v. State
516 S.E.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Hinson v. State
515 S.E.2d 203 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Usher v. State
512 S.E.2d 380 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Stone v. State
511 S.E.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Rehberger v. State
510 S.E.2d 594 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Warren v. State
509 S.E.2d 82 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Mobley v. State
508 S.E.2d 778 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
506 S.E.2d 870, 269 Ga. 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hinson-ga-1998.