Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §24-7-704, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)
- Opinion on an ultimate issue, Fed. R. Evid. 704.
- In the defendants' murder trial in which the defendants claimed a shooting was accidental as the parties struggled, because the medical examiner's testimony that the victim's injuries were inconsistent with an accidental shooting did not opine as to the defendants' mental intent for any crime or defense, there was no violation of O.C.G.A. § 24-7-704, and because the examiner's opinion was based on the examiner's specialized knowledge and training, O.C.G.A. § 24-7-707, any objection would have been meritless. Eller v. State, 303 Ga. 373, 811 S.E.2d 299 (2018).
- Although the defendant argued that the testimonies of the experts at a minimum injected the impermissible inference that the defendant caused the 18-month-old child's injuries intentionally, that was simply not the case because the expert's testimony concerned the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victim, not the mental state of the defendant; whether the accused committed an intentional act to harm the victim is a different question than whether someone likely committed an intentional act to harm the victim. Wade v. State, 304 Ga. 5, 815 S.E.2d 875 (2018).
- After being qualified as an expert witness, the fire marshal's testimony that the fire at the victims' residence was intentionally set did not invade the province of the jury in deciding whether the defendant had committed arson because the testimony did not address other elements of the crime of arson or directly implicate the defendant as the perpetrator of that crime; and the conclusion that the fire was intentionally set was not one jurors would ordinarily be able to draw for themselves. Saffold v. State, 298 Ga. 643, 784 S.E.2d 365 (2016).
- Detective's answers to the defendant's questions regarding the surveillance recording of the shooting did not violate the ultimate issue rule, and the defendant could not show harm because evidence of the defendant's guilt was compelling; and the defendant could not show that the complained-of comments likely affected the outcome of the defendant's trial as, although it might have been improper for the detective to share the detective's subjective belief that the defendant was the shooter seen on the surveillance recording with the jury explicitly, that the detective believed the defendant was the shooter seen on the surveillance recording would have come as no surprise to the jury. Thompson v. State, Ga. , 816 S.E.2d 646 (2018).
- In a case terminating the mother's parental rights, the clinical psychologist's testimony regarding the psychologist's bonding evaluation on the child was properly admitted because the psychologist, who was tendered as an expert on child psychology and attachment and bonding without objection, explained that the psychologist formed the psychologist's opinions based on an interview, observation, and testing; the psychologist testified that the methods the psychologist used and the information the psychologist gathered were of the type regularly used by others in the psychologist's profession; and the psychologist's opinion was not objectionable on the grounds that the opinion embraced an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. In the Interest of R. S. T., 345 Ga. App. 300, 812 S.E.2d 614 (2018).
Cited in State v. Cooper, 324 Ga. App. 32, 749 S.E.2d 35 (2013); Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 780 S.E.2d 129 (2015).
Total Results: 20
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-08-26
Snippet: ultimate issue in the case in violation of OCGA § 24-7-704(b). 11
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-05-29
Citation: 902 S.E.2d 593, 319 Ga. 149
Snippet: permissible under OCGA § 24-7-701 (a)4 and OCGA § 24-7-704 (a).5 Relying on these Code provisions, we have
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-04-30
Citation: 901 S.E.2d 158, 318 Ga. 868
Snippet: unless she is qualified as an expert); OCGA § 24-7-704 (b) (restricting an “expert witness tes- tifying
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-02-06
Citation: 897 S.E.2d 829, 318 Ga. 213
Snippet: excluding ultimate-issue testimony under OCGA § 24-7-704 (b). Appellant also argues that
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-05-02
Citation: 887 S.E.2d 292, 316 Ga. 363
Snippet: testimony going to the ultimate issue. OCGA § 24-7-704 (b) provides: No expert witness testifying
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-02-21
Citation: 884 S.E.2d 346, 315 Ga. 630
Snippet: the ultimate issue in the case” under OCGA § 24-7-704 (a). (b) “Under Georgia’s Evidence Code
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-05-17
Citation: 873 S.E.2d 132, 313 Ga. 771
Snippet: 12 charged or of a defense thereto,” OCGA § 24-7-704, an issue that Detective Cleland did not address
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-12-14
Citation: 313 Ga. 57
Snippet: ultimate issue of intent in violation of OCGA § 24-7-704 (b), which states: No expert witness
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-12-14
Snippet: ultimate issue of intent in violation of OCGA § 24-7-704 (b), which states:
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-03-01
Citation: 855 S.E.2d 551, 310 Ga. 892
Snippet: testimony on “ultimate issue” grounds. See OCGA § 24-7-704 (a); Mack v. State, 306 Ga. 607, 610 (2) (832
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2020-09-08
Citation: 848 S.E.2d 434, 309 Ga. 814
Snippet: the current Evidence Code, specifically OCGA § 24-7-704 (a), “‘abolished the prohibition on (lay) opinion
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2020-09-08
Citation: 848 S.E.2d 117, 309 Ga. 736
Snippet: testimony was admissible. We note that OCGA § 24-7-704 (b), which is similar to a federal rule of evidence
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2020-09-08
Citation: 848 S.E.2d 441, 309 Ga. 729
Snippet: of fact.” OCGA 24-7-704 (a). The exception to the rule is set forth in OCGA § 24-7-704 (b): 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2020-09-08
Citation: 848 S.E.2d 417, 309 Ga. 785
Snippet: helpful to understanding his testimony); OCGA § 24-7-704 (a) (“Except as provided in subsection (b) of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2020-02-10
Citation: 838 S.E.2d 878, 307 Ga. 889
Snippet: drowned her children. Morgan argued that OCGA § 24-7-704 (b) (“Rule 704 (b)”), which prohibits certain
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-10-21
Citation: 307 Ga. 121
Snippet: because it addresses an ultimate issue. See OCGA § 24-7-704 (a) (explaining that, subject to an exception
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-08-19
Citation: 306 Ga. 607
Snippet: governed by the new Evidence Code, so OCGA § 24-7-704 governs the admission of opinion testimony of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-08-05
Citation: 306 Ga. 492
Snippet: Morton’s drug charges in violation of OCGA § 24-7-704 (b),2 and also contends that Sergeant
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-08-05
Citation: 831 S.E.2d 740
Snippet: to Morton's drug charges in violation of OCGA § 24-7-704 (b),2 and also contends that Sergeant Brandle
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-05-20
Citation: 305 Ga. 882
Snippet: Campo, supra, 840 F3d at 1266-1267. See OCGA § 24-7-704 (a) (“Except as provided in subsection (b) of