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.
13 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walsh v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“The trial court [could] make this determination from evidence presented to it at trial by the parties,” or else “base its determination on exhibits, treatises[,] or the rationale of cases in other jurisdictions.” Harper, 249 Ga. at 525 (1); see also Walsh v. State, 303 Ga. 276, 279 (811 SE2d 353) (2018) (“[t]he foundation for evidence based on a scientific principle or technique requires two findings regarding the evidence’s reliability: . . . (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the te 2023“The trial court [could] make this determination from evidence presented to it at trial by the parties,” or else “base its determination on exhibits, treatises[,] or the rationale of cases in other jurisdictions.” Harper, 249 Ga. at 525 (1); see also Walsh v. State, 303 Ga. 276, 279 ( 811 SE2d 353 ) (2018) (“[t]he foundation for evidence based on a scientific principle or technique requires two findings regarding the evidence’s reliability: . . . (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the | 3 | 4 |
State v. Tousleygreen2 sentences2016In evaluating the admissibility of an HGN test, two findings are necessary: “(1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the test substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.” State v. Tousley, 271 Ga. App. 874, 876 (1) (a) ( 611 SE2d 139 ) (2005) (citations and punctuation omitted). 2016In evaluating the admissibility of an HGN test, two findings are necessary: “(1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the test substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.” State v. Tousley, 271 Ga. App. 874, 876 (1) (a) ( 611 SE2d 139 ) (2005) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 2 | 4 |
Walsh v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“The trial court [could] make this determination from evidence presented to it at trial by the parties,” or else “base its determination on exhibits, treatises[,] or the rationale of cases in other jurisdictions.” Harper, 249 Ga. at 525 (1); see also Walsh v. State, 303 Ga. 276, 279 (811 SE2d 353) (2018) (“[t]he foundation for evidence based on a scientific principle or technique requires two findings regarding the evidence’s reliability: . . . (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the te 2023“The trial court [could] make this determination from evidence presented to it at trial by the parties,” or else “base its determination on exhibits, treatises[,] or the rationale of cases in other jurisdictions.” Harper, 249 Ga. at 525 (1); see also Walsh v. State, 303 Ga. 276, 279 ( 811 SE2d 353 ) (2018) (“[t]he foundation for evidence based on a scientific principle or technique requires two findings regarding the evidence’s reliability: . . . (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the | 1 | 4 |
Harper v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Failure to object to the procedure amounts to a waiver.” Gnam v. Livingston, 353 Ga. App. 701 , 703 (2) ( 839 SE2d 200 ) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 Prior to the application of OCGA § 24-7-702 to criminal cases, Georgia courts applied the standard developed in Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 ( 292 SE2d 389 ) (1982), under which the trial court could admit scientific evidence only if it found that the party offering the evidence showed that (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results and (2) the person performin 2025Failure to object to the procedure amounts to a waiver.” Gnam v. Livingston, 353 Ga. App. 701 , 703 (2) ( 839 SE2d 200 ) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 Prior to the application of OCGA § 24-7-702 to criminal cases, Georgia courts applied the standard developed in Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 ( 292 SE2d 389 ) (1982), under which the trial court could admit scientific evidence only if it found that the party offering the evidence showed that (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results and (2) the person performin | 1 | 3 |
Parker v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Such evidence is admissible upon a showing by the party offering the evidence that (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the test substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.7 Johnson contends that pursuant to Sultan, the trial court should have excluded the results of his HGN test or instructed the jury to disregard those results based on the testimony of his expert witness, who stated that the officer performed the equal 6 (Punctuation omitted.) Parker v. S 2011The state, however, failed to demonstrate that the fracture match analysis evidence was founded on valid scientific principles. “[E Ividence based on a scientific principle or technique is admissible only if the science underlying the evidence is a phenomenon that may be verified with such certainty that it is competent evidence in a court of law.” Parker v. State, 307 Ga. App. 61 ( 704 SE2d 438 ) (2010). | 1 | 2 |
Garrison v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Garrison, 319 Ga. at 716 (1) (citation and punctuation omitted). 5 SE2d 629 ) (2024) (OCGA § 24-7-702 extended the Daubert standard to criminal cases effective July 1, 2022); Dubois v. Brantley, 297 Ga. 575, 580 (2) ( 775 SE2d 512 ) (2015) (OCGA § 24-7-702 “is based upon Federal Rule of Evidence 702”). | 1 | 1 |
Dubois v. Brantleygreen2 sentences2025Garrison, 319 Ga. at 716 (1) (citation and punctuation omitted). 5 SE2d 629 ) (2024) (OCGA § 24-7-702 extended the Daubert standard to criminal cases effective July 1, 2022); Dubois v. Brantley, 297 Ga. 575, 580 (2) ( 775 SE2d 512 ) (2015) (OCGA § 24-7-702 “is based upon Federal Rule of Evidence 702”). 2025Garrison, 319 Ga. at 716 (1) (citation and punctuation omitted). 5 SE2d 629 ) (2024) (OCGA § 24-7-702 extended the Daubert standard to criminal cases effective July 1, 2022); Dubois v. Brantley, 297 Ga. 575, 580 (2) ( 775 SE2d 512 ) (2015) (OCGA § 24-7-702 “is based upon Federal Rule of Evidence 702”). | 1 | 1 |
Duncan v. Stategreen2 sentences2023(Footnote omitted.) Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268, 270-271 (2) ( 699 SE2d 341 ) (2010). 2023(Footnote omitted.) Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268, 270-271 (2) ( 699 SE2d 341 ) (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Sultan v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Such evidence is admissible upon a showing by the party offering the evidence that (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the test substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.7 Johnson contends that pursuant to Sultan, the trial court should have excluded the results of his HGN test or instructed the jury to disregard those results based on the testimony of his expert witness, who stated that the officer performed the equal 6 (Punctuation omitted.) Parker v. S | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2005State v. Pastorini, 222 Ga. App. 316, 319 ( 474 SE2d 122 ) (1996). 1 The foundation for evidence based on a scientific principle or technique requires two findings regarding the evidence’s reliability: such evidence is admissible upon a showing by the party offering the evidence 2 that (1) “the general scientific principles and techniques involved . . . are valid and capable of producing reliable results[,]” and (2) the person performing the test “substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.” (Citations omitted.) Johnson v. State, 264 Ga. 456, 458 (5) ( 448 SE2d 1 2005State v. Pastorini, 222 Ga. App. 316, 319 ( 474 SE2d 122 ) (1996). 1 The foundation for evidence based on a scientific principle or technique requires two findings regarding the evidence’s reliability: such evidence is admissible upon a showing by the party offering the evidence 2 that (1) “the general scientific principles and techniques involved . . . are valid and capable of producing reliable results[,]” and (2) the person performing the test “substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.” (Citations omitted.) Johnson v. State, 264 Ga. 456, 458 (5) ( 448 SE2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
Pruitt v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See also Pruitt v. State, 270 Ga. *877 745, 749 (4) ( 514 SE2d 639 ) (1999) (accord). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pastorinigreen2 sentences2005State v. Pastorini, 222 Ga. App. 316, 319 ( 474 SE2d 122 ) (1996). 1 The foundation for evidence based on a scientific principle or technique requires two findings regarding the evidence’s reliability: such evidence is admissible upon a showing by the party offering the evidence 2 that (1) “the general scientific principles and techniques involved . . . are valid and capable of producing reliable results[,]” and (2) the person performing the test “substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.” (Citations omitted.) Johnson v. State, 264 Ga. 456, 458 (5) ( 448 SE2d 1 2005State v. Pastorini, 222 Ga. App. 316, 319 ( 474 SE2d 122 ) (1996). 1 The foundation for evidence based on a scientific principle or technique requires two findings regarding the evidence’s reliability: such evidence is admissible upon a showing by the party offering the evidence 2 that (1) “the general scientific principles and techniques involved . . . are valid and capable of producing reliable results[,]” and (2) the person performing the test “substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.” (Citations omitted.) Johnson v. State, 264 Ga. 456, 458 (5) ( 448 SE2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
Lester v. Stategreen2 sentences1985See Lester v. State, 253 Ga. 235 (4) ( 320 SE2d 142 ) (1984). 1985See Lester v. State, 253 Ga. 235 (4) ( 320 SE2d 142 ) (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sarkar v. CACV OF COLORADO, LLC
green
2 sentences2013Such evidence is admissible upon a showing by the party offering the evidence that (1) the general scientific principles and techniques involved are valid and capable of producing reliable results, and (2) the person performing the test substantially performed the scientific procedures in an acceptable manner.7 Johnson contends that pursuant to Sultan, the trial court should have excluded the results of his HGN test or instructed the jury to disregard those results based on the testimony of his expert witness, who stated that the officer performed the equal 6 (Punctuation omitted.) Parker v. S 2011The state, however, failed to demonstrate that the fracture match analysis evidence was founded on valid scientific principles. “[E Ividence based on a scientific principle or technique is admissible only if the science underlying the evidence is a phenomenon that may be verified with such certainty that it is competent evidence in a court of law.” Parker v. State, 307 Ga. App. 61 ( 704 SE2d 438 ) (2010). | 2 | 2011–2013 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.