gave a limiting instruction in Georgia

2026See, e.g., Prickett v. State, 314 Ga. 435 , 439-40 (2022) (holding that defendant did not show he was prejudiced when counsel failed to stipulate to defendant’s prior conviction when his prior conviction was identified only in passing “when the prosecutor introduced, without objection, a copy of the conviction,” the evidence against the defendant was strong, and the court gave a limiting instruction before jury deliberations); Chavez v. State, 307 Ga. 804 , 809-10 (2020) (holding that appellant was not prejudiced when the evidence against him was strong, the State did not bring out details of

2022On appeal, Harris explicitly challenges the State’s ability to 10 “Prior to the enactment of the new [E]vidence [C]ode, Georgia had no direct statutory equivalent to [Federal] Rule [of Evidence] 403, but case law on the issue generally required that a trial court merely balance the probative value of evidence with its prejudicial effect without requiring that the objecting party establish substantial prejudice.” Williams v. State, 328 Ga. App. 876, 879 (1) & n.12 (763 SE2d 261) (2014) (citing a Georgia evidence treatise and Georgia Court of Appeals case law). 25 satisfy only the requirements t

2022On appeal, Harris explicitly challenges the State’s ability to 10 “Prior to the enactment of the new [E]vidence [C]ode, Georgia had no direct statutory equivalent to [Federal] Rule [of Evidence] 403, but case law on the issue generally required that a trial court merely balance the probative value of evidence with its prejudicial effect without requiring that the objecting party establish substantial prejudice.” Williams v. State, 328 Ga. App. 876, 879 (1) & n.12 (763 SE2d 261) (2014) (citing a Georgia evidence treatise and Georgia Court of Appeals case law). 25 satisfy only the requirements t

2019Felonies not involving dishonesty are admitted if the court determines the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.” (footnotes omitted)). 25 See Hughes v. State, 341 Ga. App. 594, 596-97 (1) ( 802 SE2d 30 ) (2017) (holding that evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, in part, because the court gave a limiting instruction as to how that evidence should be considered); Kim v. State, 337 Ga. App. 155, 159 ( 786 SE2d 532 ) (2016) (noting that, in finding that evidence was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-403, the trial court gave a limiting instructio

2019Felonies not involving dishonesty are admitted if the court determines the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.” (footnotes omitted)). 25 See Hughes v. State, 341 Ga. App. 594, 596-97 (1) ( 802 SE2d 30 ) (2017) (holding that evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, in part, because the court gave a limiting instruction as to how that evidence should be considered); Kim v. State, 337 Ga. App. 155, 159 ( 786 SE2d 532 ) (2016) (noting that, in finding that evidence was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-403, the trial court gave a limiting instructio

2019Felonies not involving dishonesty are admitted if the court determines the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.” (footnotes omitted)). 25 See Hughes v. State, 341 Ga. App. 594, 596-97 (1) ( 802 SE2d 30 ) (2017) (holding that evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, in part, because the court gave a limiting instruction as to how that evidence should be considered); Kim v. State, 337 Ga. App. 155, 159 ( 786 SE2d 532 ) (2016) (noting that, in finding that evidence was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-403, the trial court gave a limiting instructio

2019Felonies not involving dishonesty are admitted if the court determines the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.” (footnotes omitted)). 25 See Hughes v. State, 341 Ga. App. 594, 596-97 (1) ( 802 SE2d 30 ) (2017) (holding that evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, in part, because the court gave a limiting instruction as to how that evidence should be considered); Kim v. State, 337 Ga. App. 155, 159 ( 786 SE2d 532 ) (2016) (noting that, in finding that evidence was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-403, the trial court gave a limiting instructio

2019Felonies not involving dishonesty are admitted if the court determines the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.” (footnotes omitted)). 25 See Hughes v. State, 341 Ga. App. 594, 596-97 (1) ( 802 SE2d 30 ) (2017) (holding that evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, in part, because the court gave a limiting instruction as to how that evidence should be considered); Kim v. State, 337 Ga. App. 155, 159 ( 786 SE2d 532 ) (2016) (noting that, in finding that evidence was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-403, the trial court gave a limiting instructio

2019Felonies not involving dishonesty are admitted if the court determines the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.” (footnotes omitted)). 25 See Hughes v. State, 341 Ga. App. 594, 596-97 (1) ( 802 SE2d 30 ) (2017) (holding that evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, in part, because the court gave a limiting instruction as to how that evidence should be considered); Kim v. State, 337 Ga. App. 155, 159 ( 786 SE2d 532 ) (2016) (noting that, in finding that evidence was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-403, the trial court gave a limiting instructio

2019See Barnes v. State , 287 Ga. 423 , 426, 696 S.E.2d 629 (2010) ("When similar transaction evidence is used to show bent of mind, course of conduct, motive or intent, 'a lesser degree of similarity is required than when such evidence is introduced to prove identity.' " (citation omitted)).

2019See Barnes v. State , 287 Ga. 423 , 426, 696 S.E.2d 629 (2010) ("When similar transaction evidence is used to show bent of mind, course of conduct, motive or intent, 'a lesser degree of similarity is required than when such evidence is introduced to prove identity.' " (citation omitted)).

2018See also Hood v. State , 299 Ga. 95 , 103 (4), 786 S.E.2d 648 (2016) ("The major function of [OCGA § 24-4-403 ] is to exclude matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect.") (citation and punctuation omitted). 51 Jones , 297 Ga. at 159 (1), 773 S.E.2d 170 . 52 See Jones , 297 Ga. at 162 (2), 773 S.E.2d 170 ("The relevancy of evidence of a prior state of mind[,] and the introduction of evidence of repetitive conduct to allow a jury to draw logical inferences about a defendant's knowledge and state of mind from such conduct[,] is w

2018See also Hood v. State , 299 Ga. 95 , 103 (4), 786 S.E.2d 648 (2016) ("The major function of [OCGA § 24-4-403 ] is to exclude matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect.") (citation and punctuation omitted). 51 Jones , 297 Ga. at 159 (1), 773 S.E.2d 170 . 52 See Jones , 297 Ga. at 162 (2), 773 S.E.2d 170 ("The relevancy of evidence of a prior state of mind[,] and the introduction of evidence of repetitive conduct to allow a jury to draw logical inferences about a defendant's knowledge and state of mind from such conduct[,] is w

2018Because the trial court clearly found the deputy's testimony to be credible, it did not err in finding that the defendant's statement was admissible as an unsolicited comment that was not made as a result of police interrogation.). 45 See Johnson , 301 Ga. at 711 (III), 804 S.E.2d 38 ; Haggins , 277 Ga. App. at 745 (2) (a), 627 S.E.2d 448 . 46 At trial, the court gave a limiting instruction before each witness who testified about the Appellant's prior acts. 47 See OCGA § 24-4-401 ("[T]he term 'relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of co

2018Because the trial court clearly found the deputy's testimony to be credible, it did not err in finding that the defendant's statement was admissible as an unsolicited comment that was not made as a result of police interrogation.). 45 See Johnson , 301 Ga. at 711 (III), 804 S.E.2d 38 ; Haggins , 277 Ga. App. at 745 (2) (a), 627 S.E.2d 448 . 46 At trial, the court gave a limiting instruction before each witness who testified about the Appellant's prior acts. 47 See OCGA § 24-4-401 ("[T]he term 'relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of co

2018Because the trial court clearly found the deputy's testimony to be credible, it did not err in finding that the defendant's statement was admissible as an unsolicited comment that was not made as a result of police interrogation.). 45 See Johnson , 301 Ga. at 711 (III), 804 S.E.2d 38 ; Haggins , 277 Ga. App. at 745 (2) (a), 627 S.E.2d 448 . 46 At trial, the court gave a limiting instruction before each witness who testified about the Appellant's prior acts. 47 See OCGA § 24-4-401 ("[T]he term 'relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of co

2018Because the trial court clearly found the deputy's testimony to be credible, it did not err in finding that the defendant's statement was admissible as an unsolicited comment that was not made as a result of police interrogation.). 45 See Johnson , 301 Ga. at 711 (III), 804 S.E.2d 38 ; Haggins , 277 Ga. App. at 745 (2) (a), 627 S.E.2d 448 . 46 At trial, the court gave a limiting instruction before each witness who testified about the Appellant's prior acts. 47 See OCGA § 24-4-401 ("[T]he term 'relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of co

2018Because the trial court clearly found the deputy's testimony to be credible, it did not err in finding that the defendant's statement was admissible as an unsolicited comment that was not made as a result of police interrogation.). 45 See Johnson , 301 Ga. at 711 (III), 804 S.E.2d 38 ; Haggins , 277 Ga. App. at 745 (2) (a), 627 S.E.2d 448 . 46 At trial, the court gave a limiting instruction before each witness who testified about the Appellant's prior acts. 47 See OCGA § 24-4-401 ("[T]he term 'relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of co

2018Because the trial court clearly found the deputy's testimony to be credible, it did not err in finding that the defendant's statement was admissible as an unsolicited comment that was not made as a result of police interrogation.). 45 See Johnson , 301 Ga. at 711 (III), 804 S.E.2d 38 ; Haggins , 277 Ga. App. at 745 (2) (a), 627 S.E.2d 448 . 46 At trial, the court gave a limiting instruction before each witness who testified about the Appellant's prior acts. 47 See OCGA § 24-4-401 ("[T]he term 'relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of co

2018Because the trial court clearly found the deputy's testimony to be credible, it did not err in finding that the defendant's statement was admissible as an unsolicited comment that was not made as a result of police interrogation.). 45 See Johnson , 301 Ga. at 711 (III), 804 S.E.2d 38 ; Haggins , 277 Ga. App. at 745 (2) (a), 627 S.E.2d 448 . 46 At trial, the court gave a limiting instruction before each witness who testified about the Appellant's prior acts. 47 See OCGA § 24-4-401 ("[T]he term 'relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of co

2018Because the trial court clearly found the deputy's testimony to be credible, it did not err in finding that the defendant's statement was admissible as an unsolicited comment that was not made as a result of police interrogation.). 45 See Johnson , 301 Ga. at 711 (III), 804 S.E.2d 38 ; Haggins , 277 Ga. App. at 745 (2) (a), 627 S.E.2d 448 . 46 At trial, the court gave a limiting instruction before each witness who testified about the Appellant's prior acts. 47 See OCGA § 24-4-401 ("[T]he term 'relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of co

2017The court gave a limiting instruction to this effect before the similar transaction testimony was introduced and in the court’s final charge to the jury “Guided by the liberal standard applicable in cases involving sexual offenses against children,” Kirkland v. State, 334 Ga. App. 26, 30 (1) ( 778 SE2d 42 ) (2015), we conclude that, on the facts of this case, the trial court was authorized to find that the risk of unfair prejudice did not bar the admission of the similar transaction evidence.

2017The court gave a limiting instruction to this effect before the similar transaction testimony was introduced and in the court’s final charge to the jury “Guided by the liberal standard applicable in cases involving sexual offenses against children,” Kirkland v. State, 334 Ga. App. 26, 30 (1) ( 778 SE2d 42 ) (2015), we conclude that, on the facts of this case, the trial court was authorized to find that the risk of unfair prejudice did not bar the admission of the similar transaction evidence.