Favors objection in Georgia

2019Todd , 274 Ga. at 102 (5), 549 S.E.2d 116 .

2019Todd , 274 Ga. at 102 (5), 549 S.E.2d 116 .

2019Thus, Favors has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the photograph over this objection. (b) We also find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting the photograph over Favors' objection under OCGA § 24-4-403, which provides that "[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." We have noted that "[t]he major function of Rule 403 is

2019Thus, Favors has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the photograph over this objection. (b) We also find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting the photograph over Favors' objection under OCGA § 24-4-403, which provides that "[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." We have noted that "[t]he major function of Rule 403 is

2019Thus, Favors has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the photograph over this objection. (b) We also find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting the photograph over Favors' objection under OCGA § 24-4-403, which provides that "[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." We have noted that "[t]he major function of Rule 403 is

2019Thus, Favors has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the photograph over this objection. (b) We also find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting the photograph over Favors' objection under OCGA § 24-4-403, which provides that "[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." We have noted that "[t]he major function of Rule 403 is

2019The application of Rule 403 is a matter committed principally to the discretion of the trial courts, and "the exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly." (Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Olds v. State , 299 Ga. 65 , 70 (2), 786 S.E.2d 633 (2016).

2019The application of Rule 403 is a matter committed principally to the discretion of the trial courts, and "the exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly." (Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Olds v. State , 299 Ga. 65 , 70 (2), 786 S.E.2d 633 (2016).

2022As to causation, “[t]o recover damages in a tort action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was both the ‘cause in fact’ and the ‘proximate cause’ of the injury.” Atlanta Obstetrics 5 We need not address this enumeration of error to the extent that it pertains to Favors’s claim for premises liability, as the trial court granted summary judgment to the Magic City Defendants on that claim. 6 Favors’s claims that the Magic City Defendants also should be held liable for the alleged negligence of Officer Thompson are addressed in Division 2, below. 6 & Gynecology Group, P.A. v.

2022As to causation, “[t]o recover damages in a tort action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was both the ‘cause in fact’ and the ‘proximate cause’ of the injury.” Atlanta Obstetrics 5 We need not address this enumeration of error to the extent that it pertains to Favors’s claim for premises liability, as the trial court granted summary judgment to the Magic City Defendants on that claim. 6 Favors’s claims that the Magic City Defendants also should be held liable for the alleged negligence of Officer Thompson are addressed in Division 2, below. 6 & Gynecology Group, P.A. v.

2022As to causation, “[t]o recover damages in a tort action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was both the ‘cause in fact’ and the ‘proximate cause’ of the injury.” Atlanta Obstetrics 5 We need not address this enumeration of error to the extent that it pertains to Favors’s claim for premises liability, as the trial court granted summary judgment to the Magic City Defendants on that claim. 6 Favors’s claims that the Magic City Defendants also should be held liable for the alleged negligence of Officer Thompson are addressed in Division 2, below. 6 & Gynecology Group, P.A. v.

2022As to causation, “[t]o recover damages in a tort action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was both the ‘cause in fact’ and the ‘proximate cause’ of the injury.” Atlanta Obstetrics 5 We need not address this enumeration of error to the extent that it pertains to Favors’s claim for premises liability, as the trial court granted summary judgment to the Magic City Defendants on that claim. 6 Favors’s claims that the Magic City Defendants also should be held liable for the alleged negligence of Officer Thompson are addressed in Division 2, below. 6 & Gynecology Group, P.A. v.

2022As to causation, “[t]o recover damages in a tort action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was both the ‘cause in fact’ and the ‘proximate cause’ of the injury.” Atlanta Obstetrics 5 We need not address this enumeration of error to the extent that it pertains to Favors’s claim for premises liability, as the trial court granted summary judgment to the Magic City Defendants on that claim. 6 Favors’s claims that the Magic City Defendants also should be held liable for the alleged negligence of Officer Thompson are addressed in Division 2, below. 6 & Gynecology Group, P.A. v.

2019Thus, Favors has 2 As Favors’ “trial occurred after January 1, 2013, the effective date of Georgia’s new Evidence Code, the Code is applicable to the admissibility of the photographs.” Pike v. State, 302 Ga. 795, 799 (3) ( 809 SE2d 756 ) (2018). not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the photograph over this objection. (b) We also find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in admitting the photograph over Favors’ objection under Rule 403, which provides that “[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of un

2019Thus, Favors has 2 As Favors’ “trial occurred after January 1, 2013, the effective date of Georgia’s new Evidence Code, the Code is applicable to the admissibility of the photographs.” Pike v. State, 302 Ga. 795, 799 (3) ( 809 SE2d 756 ) (2018). not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the photograph over this objection. (b) We also find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in admitting the photograph over Favors’ objection under Rule 403, which provides that “[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of un

2015See Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 599 (2) (a) ( 669 SE2d 98 ) (2008) (counsel’s failure to object to “handful of comments” by prosecutor during closing was neither objectively unreasonable nor prejudicial to defense). 5.

2015See Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 599 (2) (a) ( 669 SE2d 98 ) (2008) (counsel’s failure to object to “handful of comments” by prosecutor during closing was neither objectively unreasonable nor prejudicial to defense). 5.