Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kirby v. Stategreen2 sentences2019In sum, "[b]ecause the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to exclude matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect," a trial court's decision "to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly." Kirby , 304 Ga. at 476 , 819 S.E.2d 468 (citation and punctuation omitted). 2019In sum, "[b]ecause the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to exclude matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect," a trial court's decision "to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly." Kirby , 304 Ga. at 476 , 819 S.E.2d 468 (citation and punctuation omitted). | 4 | 5 |
Hood v. Stategreen2 sentences2019The major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclud[e] matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by its heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect,” and exclusion of evidence under the statute is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly.” Hood v. State, 299 Ga. 95, 102-103 ( 786 SE2d 648 ) (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). 2019The major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclud[e] matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by its heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect,” and exclusion of evidence under the statute is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly.” Hood v. State, 299 Ga. 95, 102-103 ( 786 SE2d 648 ) (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 2 | 4 |
Mcwilliams v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Because Castillo-Velasquez strongly contested the issue of intent, because the State needed evidence of the New York crime to counter that defense, and because the trial court mitigated the prejudicial impact of the other-act evidence by giving the jury specific instructions about the limited purpose of the evidence, see McWilliams v. State , 304 Ga. 502 , 511, 820 S.E.2d 33 (2018), we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative value of the evidence was not **650 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Castillo-Velasquez. 3 2019Because Castillo-Velasquez strongly contested the issue of intent, because the State needed evidence of the New York crime to counter that defense, and because the trial court mitigated the prejudicial impact of the other-act evidence by giving the jury specific instructions about the limited purpose of the evidence, see McWilliams v. State , 304 Ga. 502 , 511, 820 S.E.2d 33 (2018), we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative value of the evidence was not **650 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Castillo-Velasquez. 3 | 1 | 2 |
Bradshaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2023This balancing “determination lies within the discretion of the [trial] court and calls for a common sense assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense, including prosecutorial need, overall similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged offense, as well as temporal remoteness.” Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650, 657-658 (3) ( 769 SE2d 892 ) (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted).4 It has also been emphasized that the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudi 2023This balancing “determination lies within the discretion of the [trial] court and calls for a common sense assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense, including prosecutorial need, overall similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged offense, as well as temporal remoteness.” Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650, 657-658 (3) ( 769 SE2d 892 ) (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted).4 It has also been emphasized that the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudi | 1 | 1 |
McAllister v. Stategreen2 sentences2023McAllister v. State, 351 Ga. App. 76, 81 (1) ( 830 SE2d 443 ) (2019) (citations and punctuation omitted). 2023McAllister v. State, 351 Ga. App. 76, 81 (1) ( 830 SE2d 443 ) (2019) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Brannon v. Stategreen2 sentences2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da 2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da 2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da | 1 | 1 |
Parks v. Stategreen2 sentences2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da 2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da 2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da | 1 | 1 |
Steele v. Stategreen1 sentence2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da | 1 | 1 |
Dority v. the Stategreen2 sentences2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da 2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2019See OCGA § 24-4-403; Jones, supra. “Because the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to exclude matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect, the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly.” Kirby, supra at 480 (4) 10 (footnote, citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Benning v. State
green
2 sentences2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da 2019OCGA § 24-4- 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 16 Steele, 337 Ga. App. at 566 (3) n.5. 17 Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 95 (3) ( 780 SE2d 129 ) (2015). 10 the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Importantly, the major function of OCGA § 24-4-403 is to “exclude matters of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect”18 due to the da | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.