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[Repealed] Expert opinion testimony in criminal proceedings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 L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24; repealed by Ga.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 L. 2022, p. 201, § 2/HB 478 repealed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).
Mitchell v. State, 802 S.E.2d 217 (Ga. 2017). “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). “See also former OCGA § 24-7-707 (2022) 7; Matthews v. State, 268 Ga.”
Jones v. State, 785 S.E.2d 886 (Ga. 2016). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “35 OCGA § 24-7-707. 36 Smith v. State, 247 Ga.”
Smith v. State, 882 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. 2022). “See former OCGA § 24-7-707 (2013); see also Debelbot v.”
Mosby v. State, 796 S.E.2d 277 (Ga. 2017). “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.”
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.