Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 24-8-805 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 24-8-805 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 24-8-805

TITLE 24 EVIDENCE

Section 8. Hearsay, 24-8-801 through 24-8-826.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

24-8-805. Hearsay within hearsay.

Hearsay included within hearsay shall not be excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule.

(Code 1981, §24-8-805, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)

Cross references.

- Hearsay within hearsay, Fed. R. Evid. 805.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the reenactment of this Title, effective January 1, 2013, the reader is advised to consult the annotations following Code Sections24-8-803 and24-8-804 for notes on hearsay exceptions and their applicability. In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-1 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Double hearsay inadmissible in property action.

- Trial court did not err in granting a property owner's motion in limine to exclude evidence that a father of a record title holder's descendant told the descendant that the father told the owner's brother that the brother could not build a house on property because the evidence was double hearsay and inadmissible. DeFoor v. DeFoor, 290 Ga. 540, 722 S.E.2d 697 (2012) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-1).

Even if the investigator's report was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the summary of the statement of a student was not subject to an exception and, thus, both parts of the hearsay were not covered as required. Tuggle v. Rose, 333 Ga. App. 431, 773 S.E.2d 485 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1862, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 813 (Ga. 2015).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 24-8-805

Total Results: 4  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Robbins v. State, 300 Ga. 387 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 2016 | 793 S.E.2d 62

...ing police officer and the testimony of Susan’s daughter. In this regard, the potential hearsay within hearsay as conveyed through the testimony of the police officer and Susan’s daughter must be independently evaluated for admissibility SeeOCGA § 24-8-805 (“Hearsay included within hearsay shall not be excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule”)....
Copy

Mosley v. State, 298 Ga. 849 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 4, 2016 | 785 S.E.2d 297

...327, 330-331 (2) (737 SE2d 673) (2013) (same standard for plain error under old Evidence Code). We find no such error in the admission of C. N.’s testimony. In the first place, it is not clear that the admission of that testimony was error at all. See OCGA § 24-8-805 (“[h]earsay included within hearsay shall not be excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule”)....
Copy

Grier v. State, 869 S.E.2d 423 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 15, 2022 | 313 Ga. 236

...The trial court did not err, much less commit plain error, in admitting Brettnacher’s testimony that J. F. told Jackson that “daddy shot mommy,” because both Jackson’s statement to Brettnacher and J. F.’s statement to Jackson were admissible as excited utterances. See OCGA § 24-8-805 (“Hearsay included within hearsay shall not be excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule.”). Under OCGA § 24-8-803 (2), regardless of whether the...
Copy

Downer v. State, 878 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 20, 2022 | 314 Ga. 617

...former in reaching its judgment.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of this testimony. See Gomillion v. State, 298 Ga. 505, 506 (1) (783 SE2d 13 See OCGA § 24-8-805 (“Hearsay included within hearsay shall not be excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule.”). 27 103) (2016) (no abuse of...