Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 24-1-105 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 24-1-105 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 24-1-105

TITLE 24 EVIDENCE

Section 1. General Provisions, 24-1-1 through 24-1-106.

ARTICLE 2 GENERAL EVIDENTIARY MATTERS

24-1-105. Limited admissibility.

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.

(Code 1981, §24-1-105, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)

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 presented against the co-defendant concerning charges that were unique to the co-defendant because the defendant failed to make such a request. McNair v. State, 330 Ga. App. 478, 767 S.E.2d 290 (2014).

Cross references.

- Limiting evidence that is not admissible against other parties or for other purposes, Fed. R. Evid. 105.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 24-1-105

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

State v. Green, 321 Ga. 204 (Ga. 2025).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 4, 2025

...siloed context of its analysis to the fact that this enumeration was chronologically the last one to be addressed. The record reflects that the CVS evidence was generally admitted by the trial court for any purpose, rather than on a limited basis, see OCGA §§ 24-1-104 and 24-1-105, and that the only request to limit the admissibility of the CVS evidence was from the State and later withdrawn....

Williams v. State (Ga. 2025).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 30, 2025

...under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) at trial, nor has Williams separately made any such argument on appeal, and he cites no authority for his suggestion that consideration of Rule 404(b) is necessarily part of an inquiry whether Rule 807’s exception to hearsay applies. 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 inst...