Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
MCCLURE v. the STATE.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided June 21, 2018No. A18A0324Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcFadden, Presiding Judge
The majority today expands our rule that, in order to raise an affirmative defense, a defendant must admit the crime - not only for the limited purpose of raising and presenting his affirmative defense, but for all purposes. The majority now holds that a defendant must also admit whatever facts are alleged in the indictment. The rule the majority *318expands today was adopted in error. We should disapprove it rather than expand it. I therefore respectfully dissent from Division 2 of the majority opinion
I concur in Division 1 and in the error analysis of Division 3. Because I would find, as to…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Ronald Maurice Stump v. John Bennett, Warden, Iowa State Penitentiary, Fort Madison, IowaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1976
- Rivers v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1982
- United States v. David S. King, United States of America v. Stanley E. Deal, M. D.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.