O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 24-7-705 (2019)

Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. An expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.

History

Code 1981, § 24-7-705, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.

Annotations

Cross references. Disclosing the facts or data underlying an expert’s opinion, Fed. R. Evid. 705.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Order to disclose notes proper. - Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion when the court ordered pretrial disclosure of a potential expert’s notes as necessary for meaningful cross-examination because it was reasonable for the

court to have concluded that the expert based an opinion, at least in part, on information obtained from the defendant’s answering questions. Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238, 875 S.E.2d 659, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 169 (2022).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238 (Ga. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238 (Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “” The court concluded that pretrial disclosure was necessary under OCGA § 24-7-705 79The summary said that Dr.”
Clark v. State, 769 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “…about he heard. He told us as if he knew.” 3 The new Evidence Code addresses this issue in OCGA § 24-7-703. See also OCGA § 24-7-705.”
Thed Edwards v. Aleaf Roundtree (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 24-7-705; Taylor v. Burlington Northern R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.