Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Naji v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Where the results of a laboratory test are not being admitted into evidence, but are instead being used to form part of the basis for an expert’s opinion, it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to allow an expert to testify about the lab results Taylor, 303 Ga. at 230 (4) (citing Naji v. State, 300 Ga. 659, 662-663 (2) ( 797 SE2d 916 ) (2017) (no Confrontation Clause violation where medical examiner used another person’s autopsy report, which was not admissible, to testify about his opinion of victim’s cause of death)). 2022Where the results of a laboratory test are not being admitted into evidence, but are instead being used to form part of the basis for an expert’s opinion, it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to allow an expert to testify about the lab results Taylor, 303 Ga. at 230 (4) (citing Naji v. State, 300 Ga. 659, 662-663 (2) ( 797 SE2d 916 ) (2017) (no Confrontation Clause violation where medical examiner used another person’s autopsy report, which was not admissible, to testify about his opinion of victim’s cause of death)). | 3 | 3 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Where the results of a laboratory test are not being admitted into evidence, but are instead being used to form part of the basis for an expert’s opinion, it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to allow an expert to testify about the lab results.38 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion here in allowing the expert to testify based on his review of data not admitted into evidence, and likewise, Mitchell’s trial counsel was not deficient in declining to object to this testimony.39 (d) Failure to object to the use of prior bad acts. 37 Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 225, 230 (4 2023Where the results of a laboratory test are not being admitted into evidence, but are instead being used to form part of the basis for an expert’s opinion, it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to allow an expert to testify about the lab results.38 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion here in allowing the expert to testify based on his review of data not admitted into evidence, and likewise, Mitchell’s trial counsel was not deficient in declining to object to this testimony.39 (d) Failure to object to the use of prior bad acts. 37 Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 225, 230 (4 | 2 | 2 |
Reddick v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Where the results of a laboratory test are not being admitted into evidence, but are instead being used to form part of the basis for an expert’s opinion, it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to allow an expert to testify about the lab results.38 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion here in allowing the expert to testify based on his review of data not admitted into evidence, and likewise, Mitchell’s trial counsel was not deficient in declining to object to this testimony.39 (d) Failure to object to the use of prior bad acts. 37 Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 225, 230 (4 2023Where the results of a laboratory test are not being admitted into evidence, but are instead being used to form part of the basis for an expert’s opinion, it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to allow an expert to testify about the lab results.38 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion here in allowing the expert to testify based on his review of data not admitted into evidence, and likewise, Mitchell’s trial counsel was not deficient in declining to object to this testimony.39 (d) Failure to object to the use of prior bad acts. 37 Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 225, 230 (4 | 1 | 1 |
Rector v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Where the results of a laboratory test are not being admitted into evidence, but are instead being used to form part of the basis for an expert’s opinion, it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to allow an expert to testify about the lab results.38 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion here in allowing the expert to testify based on his review of data not admitted into evidence, and likewise, Mitchell’s trial counsel was not deficient in declining to object to this testimony.39 (d) Failure to object to the use of prior bad acts. 37 Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 225, 230 (4 2023Where the results of a laboratory test are not being admitted into evidence, but are instead being used to form part of the basis for an expert’s opinion, it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to allow an expert to testify about the lab results.38 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion here in allowing the expert to testify based on his review of data not admitted into evidence, and likewise, Mitchell’s trial counsel was not deficient in declining to object to this testimony.39 (d) Failure to object to the use of prior bad acts. 37 Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 225, 230 (4 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
green
1 sentence2022Under Bullcoming, when confronted with the results of a laboratory test used as evidence against the accused, the accused’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation includes the right “to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.” 564 U. S. at 652 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Peterson v. Lott
green
2 sentences1980"It is not contrary to the best-evidence rule that oral testimony of a fact in issue may be primary evidence of the fact, although there is written evidence thereof, where the essential fact to be proved is neither the existence nor the contents of the writing, but the existence of the independent fact itself, to which the writing is merely collateral or incidental.” Peterson v. Lott, 200 Ga. 390 (1) ( 37 SE2d 358 ) (1946). 5. 1980"It is not contrary to the best-evidence rule that oral testimony of a fact in issue may be primary evidence of the fact, although there is written evidence thereof, where the essential fact to be proved is neither the existence nor the contents of the writing, but the existence of the independent fact itself, to which the writing is merely collateral or incidental.” Peterson v. Lott, 200 Ga. 390 (1) ( 37 SE2d 358 ) (1946). 5. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.