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

O.C.G.A. § 24-7-707 (2019)

[Repealed] Expert opinion testimony in criminal proceedings

✓ 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

History

Code 1981, § 24-7-707, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24; repealed by Ga. L. 2022, p. 201, § 2/HB 478, effective July 1, 2022.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2022, p. 201, § 2/HB 478 repealed

this Code section and, in light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations have been transferred to Code Section 24-7-702.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: Mitchell v. State, 802 S.E.2d 217 (Ga. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mitchell v. State, 802 S.E.2d 217 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 14× “He also challenged the constitutionality of OCGA § 24-7-707, governing the admissibility of *565 expert opinion testimony in criminal cases.”
Reddick v. State, 911 S.E.2d 638 (Ga. 2025). · cites it 20× “See also former OCGA § 24-7-707 (2022) 7; Matthews v. State, 268 Ga.”
Jones v. State, 785 S.E.2d 886 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 24-7-707 (“In criminal proceedings, the opinions of experts on any question of science, skill, trade, or like questions shall always be admissible; and such opinions may be given on the facts as proved by other witnesses”); Harper v.”
Davis v. State, 801 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 24-7-707: “In criminal proceedings, the opinions of experts on any question of science, skill, trade, or like questions shall always be admissible; and such opinions may be given on the facts as proved by other witnesses.”
Bacon v. State, 887 S.E.2d 263 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 8× “2 The trial court clarified its ruling in its order denying Bacon’s motion for new trial, explaining that the defense had failed to lay a proper foundation to tender Smith as an expert under OCGA § 24-7-707. Specifically, the court found that “Smith’s testimony [was] not…”
Nundra v. State, 885 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 4× “At the time Nundra was tried, former OCGA § 24-7-707 (2013), governing expert testimony, was still in effect.”
Moody v. State, 888 S.E.2d 109 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 12× “22 Moody has not cited a single case, nor are we are aware of one, in which we have held that testimony regarding brain damage fell 22 The General Assembly repealed OCGA § 24-7-707, effective July 1, 2022, and the admissibility of expert opinion testimony in both civil and…”
State v. Almanza, 820 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d 396 (2018) (explaining that because OCGA § 24-7-707"does not have any equivalent provision in the federal rules, .”
Winters v. State, 824 S.E.2d 306 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 4× “We have already explained that the Harper standard still applies under the new Code because the statute it was decided under, the old OCGA § 24-9-67, was carried forward as the new OCGA § 24-7-707. See Jones v. State , 299 Ga.”
Dimauro v. the State, 801 S.E.2d 558 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “35 OCGA § 24-7-707. 36 Smith v. State, 247 Ga.”
Smith v. State, 882 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “See former OCGA § 24-7-707 (2013); see also Debelbot v.”
Mosby v. State, 796 S.E.2d 277 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and this case was docketed to the September 2016 term of court and was orally argued on October 3, 2016.”
Show all 70 citing cases →
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.