abuse of discretion standard in Georgia

2025Markle and Padgett, JJ., concur. 7 See Williams v. State, 306 Ga. 674, 677 (2) ( 832 SE2d 843 ) (2019) (“[W]e generally presume that a trial court understood the nature of its discretion and exercised it, unless the record shows otherwise.”); Williams v. State, 328 Ga. App. 876, 880 (1) ( 763 SE2d 261 ) (2014) (explaining that the abuse of discretion standard “recognizes the range of possible conclusions the trial judge may reach”). 8 Compare with Overstreet, 312 Ga. at 575-576 (2) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony regarding the defendant’s prior gui

2025Markle and Padgett, JJ., concur. 7 See Williams v. State, 306 Ga. 674, 677 (2) ( 832 SE2d 843 ) (2019) (“[W]e generally presume that a trial court understood the nature of its discretion and exercised it, unless the record shows otherwise.”); Williams v. State, 328 Ga. App. 876, 880 (1) ( 763 SE2d 261 ) (2014) (explaining that the abuse of discretion standard “recognizes the range of possible conclusions the trial judge may reach”). 8 Compare with Overstreet, 312 Ga. at 575-576 (2) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony regarding the defendant’s prior gui

2026See Venturino v. State, 306 Ga. 391, 393 (2019) (“We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2026See Venturino v. State, 306 Ga. 391, 393 (2019) (“We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2018"We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review." Reed v. State , 291 Ga. 10 , 14 (3), 727 S.E.2d 112 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2018"We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review." Reed v. State , 291 Ga. 10 , 14 (3), 727 S.E.2d 112 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2020“Evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard[.]” Reeves v. State, 294 Ga. 673, 676 (2) ( 755 SE2d 695 ) (2014).

2020“Evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard[.]” Reeves v. State, 294 Ga. 673, 676 (2) ( 755 SE2d 695 ) (2014).

2026Woods argues that evidence from the May 21 incident was improperly admitted for purposes of knowledge and intent pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404(b) (“Rule 404(b)”) and that he was harmed by the admission of the improper evidence. 4 4 Woods’s enumeration of error on this issue includes language suggesting that he also is asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of trial 8 “We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Williams v. State, 302 Ga. 474, 478 (2017) (quotation marks omitted).

2026Woods argues that evidence from the May 21 incident was improperly admitted for purposes of knowledge and intent pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404(b) (“Rule 404(b)”) and that he was harmed by the admission of the improper evidence. 4 4 Woods’s enumeration of error on this issue includes language suggesting that he also is asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of trial 8 “We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Williams v. State, 302 Ga. 474, 478 (2017) (quotation marks omitted).

2025The court reasoned that a mistrial was not warranted because it was unlikely that the jurors “would even know or appreciate the difference between a hearing or a trial, much less would read into that that necessarily means that there was a prior jury trial in this case[.]” “The abuse of discretion standard applies to the review of the denial by the trial court of a motion for mistrial.” Underwood v. State, 218 Ga. App. 530, 534 (3) ( 462 SE2d 434 ) (1995).

2025The court reasoned that a mistrial was not warranted because it was unlikely that the jurors “would even know or appreciate the difference between a hearing or a trial, much less would read into that that necessarily means that there was a prior jury trial in this case[.]” “The abuse of discretion standard applies to the review of the denial by the trial court of a motion for mistrial.” Underwood v. State, 218 Ga. App. 530, 534 (3) ( 462 SE2d 434 ) (1995).

2023Pon, 963 F3d at 1219 (III) (A); Mayhew, 917 F2d at 964. 17 decision “even though we would have gone the other way had it been our call”) (citation and punctuation omitted); McDonald v. Garden Svcs., 163 Ga. App. 851, 852-853 ( 295 SE2d 551 ) (1982) (unless there has been an abuse of discretion, this Court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s, even if individual judges might have reached a different conclusion); United States v. Pon, 963 F3d 1207, 1219 (III) (A) (11th Cir. 2020) (“The deference we show trial courts on evidentiary rulings is especially pronounced in the Daubert

2023Pon, 963 F3d at 1219 (III) (A); Mayhew, 917 F2d at 964. 17 decision “even though we would have gone the other way had it been our call”) (citation and punctuation omitted); McDonald v. Garden Svcs., 163 Ga. App. 851, 852-853 ( 295 SE2d 551 ) (1982) (unless there has been an abuse of discretion, this Court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s, even if individual judges might have reached a different conclusion); United States v. Pon, 963 F3d 1207, 1219 (III) (A) (11th Cir. 2020) (“The deference we show trial courts on evidentiary rulings is especially pronounced in the Daubert

2021And we “defer to the jury’s factual decision-making process and . . . apply an abuse of discretion standard when evaluating whether [a punitive damages] award is excessive under the common law.” Time Warner Entertainment Co., 254 Ga. App. at 603 (2) (a) (ii).

2019Under the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court lacks " 'the broad discretionary powers vested in trial courts to set aside verdicts.' " Time Warner , 254 Ga. App. at 602 (2) (a) (ii), 563 S.E.2d 178 , quoting Smith v. Miliken , 247 Ga. 369 , 372 (3), 276 S.E.2d 35 (1981).

2026Holsey v. State, 291 Ga. App. 216, 219 (2) ( 661 SE2d 621 ) (2008).

2026Holsey v. State, 291 Ga. App. 216, 219 (2) ( 661 SE2d 621 ) (2008).

2024Moreover, a prenuptial agreement is not unenforceable “just because it perpetuate[s] the already existing disparity between the parties’ estates.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mallen v. Mallen, 280 Ga. 43, 47 (2) ( 622 SE2d 812 ) (2005). 6 This Court evaluates “a trial court’s ruling regarding the enforceability of an antenuptial agreement under the familiar abuse of discretion standard of review.” Lawrence, 286 Ga. at 309 (1).

2017Under an abuse of discretion standard of review, we are to “review the trial court’s legal holdings de novo, and we uphold the trial court’s factual findings as long as they are not clearly erroneous, which means there is some evidence in the record to support them.” Lawrence v. Lawrence, 286 Ga. 309, 310 (1) ( 687 SE2d 421 ) (2009). (a) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding sanctionable conduct?

2015“The standard of review of the trial court’s ruling on a challenge to evidence on the ground 19 that its probative value is outweighed by its tendency to unduly prejudice the jury is an abuse of discretion standard.” Holland v. State, 221 Ga. App. 821, 825 (3) ( 472 SE2d 711 ) (1996) (citation omitted).

2015“The standard of review of the trial court’s ruling on a challenge to evidence on the ground 19 that its probative value is outweighed by its tendency to unduly prejudice the jury is an abuse of discretion standard.” Holland v. State, 221 Ga. App. 821, 825 (3) ( 472 SE2d 711 ) (1996) (citation omitted).

2014Legacy contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for a new trial.32 According to the motion, Michele Reymond allegedly committed perjury during the trial when she testified that she did not have an 31 See Carter v. State, 296 Ga. App. 598, 601, n. 7 ( 675 SE2d 320 ) (2009) (This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.). 32 See Hopper v. M&B Builders, 261 Ga. App. 702, 705 (1) (b) ( 583 SE2d 533 ) (2003) (“When a trial judge decides not to grant a new trial, he becomes the trier of fact, and his dis

2014Legacy contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for a new trial.32 According to the motion, Michele Reymond allegedly committed perjury during the trial when she testified that she did not have an 31 See Carter v. State, 296 Ga. App. 598, 601, n. 7 ( 675 SE2d 320 ) (2009) (This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.). 32 See Hopper v. M&B Builders, 261 Ga. App. 702, 705 (1) (b) ( 583 SE2d 533 ) (2003) (“When a trial judge decides not to grant a new trial, he becomes the trier of fact, and his dis

2010It is true that "[a] trial court's findings of fact and weighing of those facts in a speedy trial claim generally are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 598, 601 , 592 S.E.2d 848 (2004).

2010It is true that "[a] trial court's findings of fact and weighing of those facts in a speedy trial claim generally are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 598, 601 , 592 S.E.2d 848 (2004).

2010It is true that "[a] trial court's findings of fact and weighing of those facts in a speedy trial claim generally are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 598, 601 , 592 S.E.2d 848 (2004) (citing State v. Redding, 274 Ga. 831, 832 , 561 S.E.2d 79 (2002)).

2010It is true that "[a] trial court's findings of fact and weighing of those facts in a speedy trial claim generally are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 598, 601 , 592 S.E.2d 848 (2004) (citing State v. Redding, 274 Ga. 831, 832 , 561 S.E.2d 79 (2002)).

2013“We review a trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury charge under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Footnote omitted.) Turner v. State, 314 Ga. App. 263 -264 (1) ( 724 SE2d 6 ) (2012).

2013“We review a trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury charge under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Footnote omitted.) Turner v. State, 314 Ga. App. 263 -264 (1) ( 724 SE2d 6 ) (2012).

2017Further, under the abuse of discretion standard, “we review... legal holdings de novo, and we uphold . . . factual findings as long as they are not clearly erroneous, which means there is some evidence in the record to support them.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Murray v. Murray, 299 Ga. 703, 705 ( 791 SE2d 816 ) (2016). 2.

2017Further, under the abuse of discretion standard, “we review... legal holdings de novo, and we uphold . . . factual findings as long as they are not clearly erroneous, which means there is some evidence in the record to support them.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Murray v. Murray, 299 Ga. 703, 705 ( 791 SE2d 816 ) (2016). 2.

2026Thus, under the abuse-of-discretion standard, the trial court’s conclusions will be affirmed so long as they are in conformity with the governing legal principles, based on correct facts that are relevant to determining whether any legal requirements are satisfied, and within the range of possible outcomes in which there could be room for reasonable and experienced minds to differ. 10 Premier Pediatric Providers v. Kennesaw Pediatrics, 318 Ga. 350, 355 (2) ( 898 SE2d 481 ) (2024) (citation modified).

2026Thus, under the abuse-of-discretion standard, the trial court’s conclusions will be affirmed so long as they are in conformity with the governing legal principles, based on correct facts that are relevant to determining whether any legal requirements are satisfied, and within the range of possible outcomes in which there could be room for reasonable and experienced minds to differ. 10 Premier Pediatric Providers v. Kennesaw Pediatrics, 318 Ga. 350, 355 (2) ( 898 SE2d 481 ) (2024) (citation modified).

2023Appellee thereafter pursued in this Court a Motion to Remand this case, then an Amended Motion to Remand this case, for purposes of allowing the trial court to 1 Marquez’s first name appears in the record also as “Reynier.” 2 See OCGA § 5-6-42 (providing that “[t]he party having the responsibility of filing the transcript shall cause it to be filed within 30 days after filing of the notice of appeal . . . , unless the time is extended”). 3 See OCGA § 5-6-48 (c) (providing for dismissal of an appeal for failure to file transcript timely); Park Regency Partners v. Gruber, 271 Ga. App. 66, 70 (1)

2023Appellee thereafter pursued in this Court a Motion to Remand this case, then an Amended Motion to Remand this case, for purposes of allowing the trial court to 1 Marquez’s first name appears in the record also as “Reynier.” 2 See OCGA § 5-6-42 (providing that “[t]he party having the responsibility of filing the transcript shall cause it to be filed within 30 days after filing of the notice of appeal . . . , unless the time is extended”). 3 See OCGA § 5-6-48 (c) (providing for dismissal of an appeal for failure to file transcript timely); Park Regency Partners v. Gruber, 271 Ga. App. 66, 70 (1)

2020However, we accept a trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” McCoy v. State, 332 Ga. App. 626, 628 ( 774 SE2d 179 ) (2015) (punctuation omitted). (a) Ford’s law enforcement interview, deposition, and death.

2020However, we accept a trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” McCoy v. State, 332 Ga. App. 626, 628 ( 774 SE2d 179 ) (2015) (punctuation omitted). (a) Ford’s law enforcement interview, deposition, and death.

2018See Head v. State [ 253 Ga. App. 757 , 758 (2), 560 S.E.2d 536 (2002) ] (abuse of discretion standard applies to rulings on motion to disqualify).

2018See Head v. State [ 253 Ga. App. 757 , 758 (2), 560 S.E.2d 536 (2002) ] (abuse of discretion standard applies to rulings on motion to disqualify).

2017“We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 304, 306 (3) ( 667 SE2d 65 ) (2008) (footnote omitted).

2017“We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 304, 306 (3) ( 667 SE2d 65 ) (2008) (footnote omitted).

2017Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga. App. 460, 463-464 (2) ( 535 SE2d 830 ) (2000).

2017Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga. App. 460, 463-464 (2) ( 535 SE2d 830 ) (2000).

2013“We review a trial court’s decision to strike a juror for cause under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Citation omitted.) McCoy v. State, 285 Ga. App. 246, 248 (2) ( 645 SE2d 728 ) (2007).

2013“We review a trial court’s decision to strike a juror for cause under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Citation omitted.) McCoy v. State, 285 Ga. App. 246, 248 (2) ( 645 SE2d 728 ) (2007).

2011Burns v. State, 265 Ga. 763, 764 ( 462 SE2d 622 ) (1995). 1.

2011Burns v. State, 265 Ga. 763, 764 ( 462 SE2d 622 ) (1995). 1.

2022“Under an abuse of discretion standard of review, we are to review the trial court’s legal holdings de novo, and we uphold the trial court’s factual findings as long as they are not clearly erroneous, which means there is some evidence in the record to support them.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cohen v. Rogers, 341 Ga. App. 146, 148 (2) ( 798 SE2d 701 ) (2017).

2022“Under an abuse of discretion standard of review, we are to review the trial court’s legal holdings de novo, and we uphold the trial court’s factual findings as long as they are not clearly erroneous, which means there is some evidence in the record to support them.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cohen v. Rogers, 341 Ga. App. 146, 148 (2) ( 798 SE2d 701 ) (2017).

2019"We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard." Ford v. State , 274 Ga. App. 695 , 697 (1), 617 S.E.2d 262 (2005).

2019"We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard." Ford v. State , 274 Ga. App. 695 , 697 (1), 617 S.E.2d 262 (2005).

2018Nevertheless, "while the abuse-of-discretion standard presupposes a range of possible conclusions that can be reached by a trial court with regard to a particular evidentiary issue, it does not permit a clear error of judgment or the application of the wrong legal standard." (Citation omitted.) Koules v. SP5 Atlantic Retail Ventures , 330 Ga. App. 282 , 285-286 (2), 767 S.E.2d 40 (2014).

2018Nevertheless, "while the abuse-of-discretion standard presupposes a range of possible conclusions that can be reached by a trial court with regard to a particular evidentiary issue, it does not permit a clear error of judgment or the application of the wrong legal standard." (Citation omitted.) Koules v. SP5 Atlantic Retail Ventures , 330 Ga. App. 282 , 285-286 (2), 767 S.E.2d 40 (2014).