Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §24-4-405, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)
- Methods of proving character, Fed. R. Evid. 405.
- In light of the reenactment of this Title, effective January 1, 2013, the reader is advised to consult the annotations following Code Section 24-4-404, for cases discussing character and specific instances of previous conduct; Code Section 24-4-412, for cases discussing the complainant's character in sexual assault cases; Code Section 24-4-413, for cases discussing sexual assault; Code Section 24-4-414, for cases discussing child molestation; and Code Section 24-4-417, for cases discussing driving under the influence.
- For annual survey on evidence, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 125 (2013).
- In a child molestation case, the appellate court could not reach the merits of the defendant's claim regarding the exclusion of specific instances of conduct testimony from character witnesses for the defense because the affidavits from three of the character witnesses who testified at trial failed to identify any specific instance of the defendant's conduct that the witnesses were unable to testify to; furthermore, the defendant was able to present a variety of evidence regarding the defendant's good character, including specific instances of conduct. Goggins v. State, 330 Ga. App. 350, 767 S.E.2d 753 (2014).
- In a child molestation case, the trial court did not restrict the defendant's character witnesses' ability to testify as to the defendant's character trait of moral behavior and trustworthiness with children as three witnesses testified as to that character trait, and any additional testimony regarding the defendant's morality and trustworthiness with children would have been cumulative. Goggins v. State, 330 Ga. App. 350, 767 S.E.2d 753 (2014).
- Trial court did not commit plain error in the court's charge to the jury on good character evidence because the defendant used the idea that the defendant did not have a reputation for violence as a means of attempting to show the defendant's good character, and the trial court merely reflected that in the court's charge to the jury; and the jury was properly left to determine whether the defendant would have acted consistently with the defendant's purported character with respect to violence, which was to not act violently towards anyone, including the victim; further, giving that proper charge did not amount to the trial court commenting on the evidence. Jacobs v. State, 303 Ga. 245, 811 S.E.2d 372 (2018).
- Trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce evidence in its case in chief of threatening posts the defendant had made on Facebook as evidence of the defendant's allegedly violent character and behavior in conformity therewith because O.C.G.A. § 24-4-405 required such proof be made by testimony as to reputation or in the form of an opinion; however, the error was harmless. Timmons v. State, 302 Ga. 464, 807 S.E.2d 363 (2017).
- There is no reason to construe the rules regarding the admission of character evidence as a modification of Georgia's long-standing requirement that a defendant must first make a prima facie showing of self-defense before requiring a trial court to determine whether evidence pertaining to the victim's character is admissible. Oliver v. State, 329 Ga. App. 377, 765 S.E.2d 606 (2014).
- Even if the first defendant's counsel performed deficiently by failing to obtain the victim's criminal history, which the first defendant alleged would have shown the existence of a prior incident of domestic violence in Alabama and the victim's propensity for violence, the first defendant failed to show prejudice because it was not clear that any such specific incident of violence would have been admissible at the first defendant's trial as the first defendant's case was tried after the enactment of Georgia's new Evidence Code; and because, at the motion for new trial hearing, the first defendant did not present any witnesses to authenticate the Alabama domestic violence police report. Ballard v. State, 297 Ga. 248, 773 S.E.2d 254 (2015).
- Because the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the defendant acted in self-defense and evidence of the victim's propensity for violence could not be introduced, the defendant could not satisfy the requirement of demonstrating a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime, and there was no need to address the defendant's contention that the court incorrectly applied the rule regarding the methods of proving character. Oliver v. State, 329 Ga. App. 377, 765 S.E.2d 606 (2014).
- Even if any of the victim's alleged prior crimes involved specific acts of violence, because the defendant never introduced into evidence at the motion for new trial hearing any of the victim's alleged prior convictions, the defendant could not support the defendant's claim that the defendant's counsel could have been ineffective for failing to attempt to introduce such evidence at trial. Revere v. State, 302 Ga. 44, 805 S.E.2d 69 (2017).
- Trial court did not err in limiting the scope of evidence regarding the defendant's good character as the additional testimony the defendant sought to have introduced would have been cumulative. Goggins v. State, 330 Ga. App. 350, 767 S.E.2d 753 (2014).
- Trial counsel performed deficiently as counsel should have objected to the inadmissible statements of three witness that improperly placed the victim's good character in issue, but counsel's deficient performance was not prejudicial because, considering the totality of the evidence, there was no reasonable probability that, had trial counsel objected to that testimony, the outcome in the defendant's case would have been different. Revere v. State, 302 Ga. 44, 805 S.E.2d 69 (2017).
Cited in Gibson v. State, 300 Ga. 494, 796 S.E.2d 712 (2017).
- Admissibility of expert or opinion evidence of battered-woman syndrome on issue of self-defense, 58 A.L.R.5th 749.
Total Results: 20
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-12-10
Snippet: acts of violence toward other women under OCGA § 24-4-405 (b) (Rule 405), and that not admitting this evidence
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-05-29
Snippet: absence of mistake or accident. OCGA § 24-4-405 provides in relevant part: (a) In all
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-05-14
Snippet: been excluded under OCGA §§ 24-4-404 (a) and 24-4-405 (a) had his counsel objected. See OCGA § 24-4-404
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-04-30
Snippet: 40 24-4-404 (a) (2) or 24-4-405] to demonstrate that Mr. Belin had allegedly
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-07-05
Snippet: 14 arrest pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-405 (c) (“Rule 405 (c)”). Rule 405 (c) provides an
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-05-31
Snippet: testimony in the form of an opinion,” OCGA § 24-4-405 (a). Evidence of “specific instances” of a victim’s
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-03-21
Snippet: (1978)); see also OCGA § 24-4-404 (a), OCGA § 24-4-405 (a)-(b); Timmons v. State, 302 Ga. 464, 468 (2)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-01-18
Snippet: the law.2 2 OCGA §§ 24-4-404 (a) (1) and 24-4-405 (a) authorize a criminal defendant to offer evidence
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-06-30
Snippet: 873 (5) (b) (849 SE2d 191) (2020) (citing OCGA § 24-4-405). Dr. Sellers’ testimony as to a single instance
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-06-01
Snippet: the State’s limited impeachment. See OCGA § 24-4-405 (b). Given the limited and probative nature of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-08-10
Snippet: Georgia Evidence Code, see OCGA §§ 24-4-404 (a)2 and 24-4-405.3 Later, after an exchange in which Stodghill
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-04-19
Snippet: relevant section of the Evidence Code is OCGA § 24-4-405, which provides in its entirety:
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-03-01
Snippet: 24 by OCGA §§ 24-4-404 (a) (2) and 24-4-405 (a), which generally limit evidence of a victim’s
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-02-01
Snippet: character is now governed by OCGA § 24-4-404 and § 24-4-405.” (Citation omitted.) Gibson v. State, 300 Ga
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-04-29
Citation: 827 S.E.2d 652, 305 Ga. 694
Snippet: 536 (3), 773 S.E.2d 755 (2015). See also OCGA § 24-4-405. And there is no evidence that Wofford was aware
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-05-07
Citation: 814 S.E.2d 332
Snippet: undermine the witness's credibility. See OCGA § 24-4-405 (c) ; see also *338United States v. Glass, 709
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-03-05
Citation: 811 S.E.2d 416
Snippet: self-defense case. See OCGA §§ 24-4-404 (a) (2), 24-4-405 (a). The State's analysis also fails to provide
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-03-05
Citation: 811 S.E.2d 372
Snippet: on the evidence through this charge. See OCGA § 24-4-405 (a) ("In all proceedings in which evidence of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-30
Citation: 302 Ga. 464, 807 S.E.2d 363
Snippet: character is . . . governed by OCGA §§ 24-4-404 and 24-4-405.4 See Mohamud v. State, 297 Ga. 532, 535 (3) *468(773
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-02
Citation: 302 Ga. 211, 805 S.E.2d 826
Snippet: character is now governedby OCGA §§ 24-4-404 and 24-4-405.” Gibson v. State, 300 Ga. 494, 498 (3), n. 8