Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1895, § 5241, former Civil Code 1910, § 5830, former Code 1933, § 38-703, and former O.C.G.A. § 24-2-4 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Brief of evidence.

- In the preparation of the brief of evidence after trial, only such portions of documents should be embraced therein as were actually read or considered at the trial. Crawford v. Roney, 126 Ga. 763, 55 S.E. 499 (1906) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 5241).

Violation of rule of completeness.

- Because the earlier exculpatory portions of the defendant's transcribed statement were relevant as to both whether the defendant committed the rape and whether the defendant's statement was voluntary, the trial court violated the rule of completeness and abused the court's discretion when the court excluded those earlier portions of that statement; however, the error was harmless because the admitted and improperly excluded evidence showed overwhelmingly that the defendant was guilty of rape, whether principally or as a party to the crime, rendering it highly probable that any error in failing to admit the earlier portions of the defendant's statement did not contribute to the jury's verdict. Morales v. State, 337 Ga. App. 614, 788 S.E.2d 535 (2016).

No violation of rule of completeness.

- State's introduction of a partial recording of a phone call that the defendant made to the defendant's mother did not violate the rule of completeness because the portion of the call in which the defendant told the mother about a potential plea offer was unrelated to the later conversation about the defendant's uncle, who was an eyewitness to the shooting. Jackson v. State, 301 Ga. 866, 804 S.E.2d 367 (2017).

Defendant did not show that the trial court plainly erred by not allowing the defendant to play the entire recording of a witness's police interview because the trial court allowed the defendant to play an additional segment of the recording to show that the witness's prior statements to the police might have been affected by medication; and the defendant did not identify any other specific statements in the portions of the recording that the state played for the jury which needed to be explained by playing the rest of the witness's interview. Thompson v. State, Ga. , 816 S.E.2d 646 (2018).

Entry on back of deed.

- When the plaintiff relies on a deed coming from the plaintiff's own possession, the opposite party may without proof of the deed's execution, rely upon an endorsement, memorandum, or entry on the back of the deed. McBrayer v. Walker, 122 Ga. 245, 50 S.E. 95 (1905) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 5241).

Foreign state code.

- When one party offers a section of the code of another state as proof of the law of that state on a given subject, that party is not required to introduce all cognate sections. If there are other sections applicable the opposite party may offer those sections, but cannot complain that one's adversary has not done so. Southern Ry. v. Robertson, 7 Ga. App. 154, 66 S.E. 535 (1909) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 5241).

Real estate valuations.

- It would be a misconception of the principle invoked by the former statute to allow the several valuations as stated by the real estate board in a document together with their arguments and reasons therefor, to be introduced in evidence by the plaintiff merely because the plaintiff's witness on cross-examination had stated a single valuation from this paper, when the entire document was otherwise absolutely inadmissible as hearsay. City of Atlanta v. Atlanta Title & Trust Co., 45 Ga. App. 265, 164 S.E. 224 (1932) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5830).

Victim's testimony.

- After the defense counsel was allowed to pursue the inconsistencies between a witness's trial testimony and the witness's statement to a detective, pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 24-2-4, the state was entitled to rebut the defense's implication that a robber was not the defendant by reading the entire statement to the jury; consequently, the trial court did not err in allowing the detective to read part of a victim's statement to the jury. Houston v. State, 270 Ga. App. 456, 606 S.E.2d 883 (2004) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-2-4).

Photos of victim.

- Trial court properly admitted one of three photographs of the victim's body which showed an exterior mark of strangulation as such was not overly gruesome and inflammatory; moreover, pre-incision photos of a victim which depicted the location and nature of the victim's wounds were admissible as both relevant and material. McWilliams v. State, 280 Ga. 724, 632 S.E.2d 127 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-2-4).

Letters.

- Trial court did not err by refusing the defendant's request to admit only the portions of letters written by the codefendant that cast the codefendant in a bad light relative to the crimes and excluding other portions that described the defendant's role in the crimes as being more significant than the defendant had described in a custodial interview because the defendant was not permitted to admit portions of the letters for the purportedly-limited purpose of showing the codefendant's state of mind without waiving the defendant's objections to the state's introduction of the remainder of the letters. Stinski v. State, 286 Ga. 839, 691 S.E.2d 854, cert. denied, U.S. , 131 S. Ct. 522, 178 L. Ed. 2d 385 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-2-4).

Returned 911 call after emergency abated.

- At the defendant's trial for DUI and battery, the trial court did not err in excluding admission of the sheriff's return call to the homeowner, who then admitted that punching the defendant's spouse was accidental, as hearsay, because the emergency leading to the homeowner's two 911 calls had then abated, making the statement testimonial, and the homeowner had later died. Further, the defendant was acquitted of the battery charge. Danley v. State, 342 Ga. App. 61, 802 S.E.2d 851 (2017).

Log sheet with handwritten intoxilyzer results admissible.

- Log sheet with handwritten intoxilyzer results was not excluded because the state had provided everything it had with regard to the intoxilyzer results and there was nothing left in the state's possession to complete that evidence; to the extent that the state failed to provide information in the detail provided on an intoxilyzer printout, those omissions went to the weight and not the admissibility of the intoxilyzer results. Cross-examination of the officer who administered the test would allow the defendant's counsel the opportunity to test the nature of the state's evidence, and the trial court indicated that the court would revisit the motion in limine admitting the log sheet should the state not offer the testimony of that officer. Jones v. State, 345 Ga. App. 14, 812 S.E.2d 337 (2018).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 365. 29A Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 1042.

C.J.S.

- 32A C.J.S., Evidence, §§ 1038, 1102 et seq.