The State v. Almanza.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

The State v. Almanza.

822 S.E.2d 406

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 13, 2018

DocketA17A1270

StatusPublished

This text of 822 S.E.2d 406 (The State v. Almanza.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The State v. Almanza., 822 S.E.2d 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Gobeil, Judge.

*407 In State v. Almanza , 304 Ga. 553 , 820 S.E.2d 1 (2018), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment of this Court in State v. Almanza , 344 Ga. App. 38 , 807 S.E.2d 517 (2017). Accordingly, we vacate our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own. In accordance with that opinion, we vacate that part of the trial court's order finding inadmissible statements made by the mother of the alleged child molestation victim to the child's physicians, in which the mother identified Almanza as the perpetrator of the alleged molestation. We remand for the trial court to consider whether the statements at issue are admissible under OCGA § 24-8-803 (4), pursuant to the test set forth in United States v. Renville , 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1985).

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

McFadden, P. J., and Coomer, J., concur.

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

Gobeil, Judge.

*407 In State v. Almanza , 304 Ga. 553 , 820 S.E.2d 1 (2018), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment of this Court in State v. Almanza , 344 Ga. App. 38 , 807 S.E.2d 517 (2017). Accordingly, we vacate our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own. In accordance with that opinion, we vacate that part of the trial court's order finding inadmissible statements made by the mother of the alleged child molestation victim to the child's physicians, in which the mother identified Almanza as the perpetrator of the alleged molestation. We remand for the trial court to consider whether the statements at issue are admissible under OCGA § 24-8-803 (4), pursuant to the test set forth in United States v. Renville , 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1985).

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

McFadden, P. J., and Coomer, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

822 S.E.2d 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-state-v-almanza-gactapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack