non-constitutional evidentiary error in Georgia

2026A non-constitutional evidentiary error is harmless if it is “highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Moss v. State, __ Ga. __, S25A0650, slip. op at 5 (Oct. 15, 2025) (quot- ing Smith v. State, 313 Ga. 584, 587 (2022)).

2025A non- constitutional evidentiary error is harmless if it is “highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Smith v. State, 313 Ga. 584, 587 (2022).

2024“In determining whether the error was harmless, we review the record de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done[.]” Jackson v. State, 306 Ga. 69, 80 (2) (c) (829 SE2d 142) (2019) (citation omitted).

2024“In determining whether the error was harmless, we review the record de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done[.]” Jackson v. State, 306 Ga. 69, 80 (2) (c) (829 SE2d 142) (2019) (citation omitted).

2025When we assess whether an error was harm- less, “we review the record de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have weighed it.” Johnson v. State, 316 Ga. 672, 684 (2023).

2024A trial court’s non-constitutional evidentiary error requires reversal of a defendant’s conviction “unless it can be deemed harmless, meaning that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Heard v. State, 309 Ga. 76, 90 (3) (g) (844 SE2d 791) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2024A trial court’s non-constitutional evidentiary error requires reversal of a defendant’s conviction “unless it can be deemed harmless, meaning that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Heard v. State, 309 Ga. 76, 90 (3) (g) (844 SE2d 791) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2023“The test for determining whether a non-constitutional evidentiary error was harmless is whether it is highly probable that the error did not 6 “Many provisions of the new Evidence Code were borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence, and when we consider the meaning of these provisions, we look to decisions of the federal appellate courts construing and applying the Federal Rules, especially the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit.” Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65, 69 (2) ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016). 15 contribute to the verdict.” Talley v. State, 314 Ga. 153, 160 (2)

2023“The test for determining whether a non-constitutional evidentiary error was harmless is whether it is highly probable that the error did not 6 “Many provisions of the new Evidence Code were borrowed from the Federal Rules of Evidence, and when we consider the meaning of these provisions, we look to decisions of the federal appellate courts construing and applying the Federal Rules, especially the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit.” Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65, 69 (2) ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016). 15 contribute to the verdict.” Talley v. State, 314 Ga. 153, 160 (2)

2023“The test for determining whether a non-constitutional evidentiary error was harmless is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Talley v. State, 314 Ga. 153, 160-161 (2) (875 SE2d 789) (2022).

2023“The test for determining whether a non-constitutional evidentiary error was harmless is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Talley v. State, 314 Ga. 153, 160-161 (2) (875 SE2d 789) (2022).

2022But under these circumstances, any error in admitting the rest—like the details of the sexual encounter, the fact that Mendoza was injured during the incident, and the state of Mendoza’s apartment after Roberts left—was harmless. 5 A non-constitutional evidentiary error requires reversal only if it “harm[s] a defendant’s substantial rights,” and we determine whether such harm occurred by asking whether it is “highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Williams v. State, 313 Ga. 443, 448 (1) (870 SE2d 397) (2022).

2022But under these circumstances, any error in admitting the rest—like the details of the sexual encounter, the fact that Mendoza was injured during the incident, and the state of Mendoza’s apartment after Roberts left—was harmless. 5 A non-constitutional evidentiary error requires reversal only if it “harm[s] a defendant’s substantial rights,” and we determine whether such harm occurred by asking whether it is “highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Williams v. State, 313 Ga. 443, 448 (1) (870 SE2d 397) (2022).

2019See Fletcher v. State, 303 Ga. 43, 47 ( 810 SE2d 101 ) (2018) (a non-constitutional evidentiary error is harmless if “it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict” (citation and punctuation omitted)).

2019See Fletcher v. State, 303 Ga. 43, 47 ( 810 SE2d 101 ) (2018) (a non-constitutional evidentiary error is harmless if “it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict” (citation and punctuation omitted)).