Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448The contents of otherwise admissible voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that the contents of such writings, recordings, or photographs be produced in court.
(Code 1981, §24-10-1006, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)
- Summaries to prove content, Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, §§ 38-203, 38-205, and former O.C.G.A. § 24-5-29 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
- When pertinent and essential facts can be ascertained only by an examination of a large number of entries in books of account, an auditor or an expert accountant who has made an examination and analysis of the books and figures may testify as a witness and give summarized statements of what the books show as a result of the investigation, provided the books themselves are accessible to the court and the parties. Stewart v. State, 246 Ga. 70, 268 S.E.2d 906 (1980) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 38-203, 38-205); Jackson v. Meadows, 157 Ga. App. 569, 278 S.E.2d 8 (1981);.
For a discussion of the admissibility of summaries of business records, see Tyner v. Sheriff, 164 Ga. App. 360, 297 S.E.2d 114 (1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-5-29).
- Trial court properly admitted the bank's loan history report as a business record because the report provided a description of each transaction relating to the estate's loan from the loan's inception, along with a corresponding posting date for each transaction, the transaction amount, and any change to the principal balance resulting from the transaction, and was not a summary. Roberts v. Cmty. & S. Bank, 331 Ga. App. 364, 771 S.E.2d 68 (2015).
- In an action on a loan, a bank did not submit sufficient evidence to prove the bank's damages because a printout of the bank's electronic records reflecting the amounts then owed, without a detailed transaction history, was a summary requiring evidence that the underlying records were too voluminous to examine in court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-10-1006, not a business record under O.C.G.A. § 24-8-803(6). D'Agnese v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 335 Ga. App. 659, 782 S.E.2d 714 (2016).
- Requirement of notice as condition for admission in evidence of summary of voluminous records, 80 A.L.R.3d 405.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-06-15
Snippet: that the summary was admissible under OCGA § 24-10-1006 of our new Evidence Code.3 We disagree, as Tafel
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-06-15
Citation: 297 Ga. 334, 773 S.E.2d 743, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 443
Snippet: that the summary was admissible under OCGA § 24-10-1006 of our new Evidence Code. 3 We disagree