pertinent federal rule in Georgia

2026For this reason, the Eleventh Circuit has described the trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence under Rule 403 – 6 Because Rule 403 “is modeled on its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, we may look to federal appellate precedents interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying the state provision.” Harris, 314 Ga. at 264 . 13 unlike its ordinarily broad discretion to admit relevant evidence – as “narrowly circumscribed.” United States v. Smith, 459 F3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). 4.

2026For this reason, the Eleventh Circuit has described the trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence under Rule 403 – 6 Because Rule 403 “is modeled on its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, we may look to federal appellate precedents interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying the state provision.” Harris, 314 Ga. at 264 . 13 unlike its ordinarily broad discretion to admit relevant evidence – as “narrowly circumscribed.” United States v. Smith, 459 F3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). 4.

2026For this reason, the Eleventh Circuit has described the trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence under Rule 403 – 6 Because Rule 403 “is modeled on its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, we may look to federal appellate precedents interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying the state provision.” Harris, 314 Ga. at 264 . 13 unlike its ordinarily broad discretion to admit relevant evidence – as “narrowly circumscribed.” United States v. Smith, 459 F3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). 4.

2026For this reason, the Eleventh Circuit has described the trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence under Rule 403 – 6 Because Rule 403 “is modeled on its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, we may look to federal appellate precedents interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying the state provision.” Harris, 314 Ga. at 264 . 13 unlike its ordinarily broad discretion to admit relevant evidence – as “narrowly circumscribed.” United States v. Smith, 459 F3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). 4.

2026Probative Value “The probative value of evidence is a combination of its logical force to prove a point and the need at trial for evidence on that point.” State v. Flowers, 320 Ga. 882, 889 (2025) (quotation marks omitted).

2026Probative Value “The probative value of evidence is a combination of its logical force to prove a point and the need at trial for evidence on that point.” State v. Flowers, 320 Ga. 882, 889 (2025) (quotation marks omitted).

2025See White v. State, 319 Ga. 367, 398-399 ( 903 SE2d 891 ) (2024) 5 We often look to precedent from federal appellate courts interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying our state rules of evidence when the corresponding federal rule is materially the same as ours because Georgia’s Evidence Code is based on the Federal Rules of Evidence.

2025See White v. State, 319 Ga. 367, 398-399 ( 903 SE2d 891 ) (2024) 5 We often look to precedent from federal appellate courts interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying our state rules of evidence when the corresponding federal rule is materially the same as ours because Georgia’s Evidence Code is based on the Federal Rules of Evidence.

2022With respect to the “common scheme” method of proving plan, we have explained that “[t]his approach blends the purpose of plan with the purpose of identity – showing that a distinctive plan was used tends to prove that the same person executed both plans.” Heard v. State, 309 Ga. 76, 87 (844 SE2d 791) 6 “Because each of these Georgia evidence rules is modeled on its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, we may look to federal appellate precedents interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying the state provision.” Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238, 264 (3) (a) (875 SE2d 65

2022With respect to the “common scheme” method of proving plan, we have explained that “[t]his approach blends the purpose of plan with the purpose of identity – showing that a distinctive plan was used tends to prove that the same person executed both plans.” Heard v. State, 309 Ga. 76, 87 (844 SE2d 791) 6 “Because each of these Georgia evidence rules is modeled on its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, we may look to federal appellate precedents interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying the state provision.” Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238, 264 (3) (a) (875 SE2d 65

2024See Bradshaw which is not relevant shall not be admissible.” 15 See Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238, 264 (3) (a) ( 875 SE2d 659 ) (2022) (Rule 402 “is modeled on its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, [and, therefore,] we may look to federal appellate precedents interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying the state provision.”). 16 See Harris, 314 Ga. at 264 (3) (a) (Rule 401 “is modeled on its federal counterpart.”). 30 v. State, 296 Ga. 650, 656 (3) n.4 ( 769 SE2d 892 ) (2015) (“Our new Evidence Code . . . adopted the preponderance of the evidence standard for pr

2024See Bradshaw which is not relevant shall not be admissible.” 15 See Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238, 264 (3) (a) ( 875 SE2d 659 ) (2022) (Rule 402 “is modeled on its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, [and, therefore,] we may look to federal appellate precedents interpreting the pertinent federal rule for guidance in applying the state provision.”). 16 See Harris, 314 Ga. at 264 (3) (a) (Rule 401 “is modeled on its federal counterpart.”). 30 v. State, 296 Ga. 650, 656 (3) n.4 ( 769 SE2d 892 ) (2015) (“Our new Evidence Code . . . adopted the preponderance of the evidence standard for pr