O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but which is not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
History
Code 1981, § 24-1-105, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.
Annotations
Cross references. Limiting evidence that is not admissible
against other parties or for other purposes, Fed. R. Evid. 105.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Failure to request limiting instruction. - With regard to the defendant’s trial for armed robbery and possession of a firearm, the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to give the jury limiting instructions for evidence pre-
sented against the co-defendant concerning charges that were unique to the codefendant because the defendant failed to make such a request. McNair v. State, 330 Ga. App. 478, 767 S.E.2d 290, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 845 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case:
Mcnair v. The State, 767 S.E.2d 290 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Mcnair v. The State, 767 S.E.2d 290 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 24-1-105 (“When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but which is not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury…”
Williams v. State (Ga. 2025).
· cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 24-1-105 (“When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but which is not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.