Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Georgia courts shall continue to be applied to the admission and exclusion of evidence and to procedures at trial.”); Oliver v. State, 329 Ga. App. 377, 381 (765 SE2d 606) (2014) (declining to “construe OCGA §§ 24-4-404 and 24-4-405 as a modification of Georgia’s long-standing requirement that a defendant must first make a prima facie showing of self-defense before requiring a trial court to determine whether evidence pertaining to the victim’s character is admissible”); John D. Hadden, Georgia Law of Evidence § 1:1 (“[Ejven where the federal E2d 80) (1994); accord Brooks v. State, 311 Ga. App. 857, 860 (2) (717 SE2d 490) (2011). 32 Brooks, 311 Ga. App. at 860 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord Freeman, 264 Ga. at 277; see also Kimmel v. State, 261 Ga. 332, 334 (2) (404 SE2d 436) (1991) (<HOLDING>). 33 Freeman, 264 Ga. at 278; accord Newsome v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not err in declining to accept jurys first verdict when form stated that the jury found the defendant undecided and trial courts interpretation of the verdict form to mean that the jury was either not unanimous or had not decided yet whether defendant was guilty or not guilty was reasonable and thus trial court properly instructed jury to continue deliberating (B) holding that upon objection to the form of the verdict trial court did not err in returning jury for further deliberations (C) holding that a district court did not err by submitting a special verdict form to the jury this particular verdict form did not specify a standard of proof (D) holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of right to unanimous verdict (E) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge
Output (English): holding that upon objection to the form of the verdict trial court did not err in returning jury for further deliberations