O.C.G.A.
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.
When a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked and, if attacked, may be supported by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant’s hearsay statement, shall not be subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party shall be entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.
History
Code 1981, § 24-8-806, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.
Annotations
Cross references. Attacking and supporting the declarant’s credibility, Fed. R. Evid. 806.
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 Section 24-8-803 for notes on hearsay declarants.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Prior inconsistent statement. - Trial court did not err in admitting extrinsic evidence of the cousin’s prior inconsistent statements because the state complied with the prerequisites of O.C.G.A. § 24-6-613(b) as both the prosecutor and defense counsel examined the witness as to each of the prior inconsistent statements and the witness was afforded an opportunity to explain or to deny the prior inconsistent statements, which entitled the prosecutor to ask leading questions. McNair v. State, 330 Ga. App. 478, 767 S.E.2d 290, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 845 (2014). Absent declarant impeached with former conviction. - Because the defendant’s accountant had authored a chart regarding billing and finance for two disabled men in the defendant’s unlicensed personal care home and the accountant did not testify, the information in the chart was hearsay under O.C.G.A. § 248-801(c), and the state was entitled to impeach the accountant’s credibility with a former conviction, O.C.G.A. § 24-8-806.
Hawkins v. State, 350 Ga. App. 862, 830 S.E.2d 301, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 377 (2019). Telephone statements. - Witness’s hearsay testimony about the defendant’s statements to the witness on the telephone shortly after a robbery and shooting in the witness’s front yard was admissible against the co-defendant in their joint trial under the co-conspirator exception; however, the defendant’s statements exonerating the co-defendant during the defendant’s plea hearing were not admissible to impeach the telephone statements. Esprit v. State, 305 Ga. 429, 826 S.E.2d 7, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 159 (2019). Exclusion of impeaching conviction harmless, if error. - Assuming that the trial court’s exclusion of a hearsay declarant’s certified conviction was error, the error was harmless because counsel was able to elicit testimony regarding the conviction, and the copy would have been merely cumulative. Redding v. State, 307 Ga. 722, 838 S.E.2d 282, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 55 (2020).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 2014–2020 · leading case:
Esprit v. State, 826 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. 2019).
Esprit v. State, 826 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 2× “" Esprit cites no Georgia precedent that clearly and directly would have required the trial court to admit Jones's plea-hearing statements after Robateau testified, had Esprit's trial counsel tried to admit that evidence at that point.”
Hawkins v. State, 830 S.E.2d 301 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “" OCGA § 24-8-806. During the direct examination of Hawkins, the defense introduced into evidence a chart that demonstrated Serene Reflections's Medicaid billings for Bacon and Wilson, to demonstrate that the amount of money involved would have been too small for Hawkins to have…”
Murdock v. State, 787 S.E.2d 184 (Ga. 2016).
· cites it 2× “6 In pertinent part, OCGA § 24-6-613 (b) provides: Except as provided in Code Section 24-8-806 [pertaining to the impeachment of a declarant by inconsistent statement or conduct], extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness shall not be admissible unless…”
Merritt v. State, 310 Ga. 433 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 24-6-613 (b) (“Except as 10 provided in Code Section 24-8-806, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness shall not be admissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent statement and the…”
Redding v. State, 838 S.E.2d 282 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 2× “(As discussed above, Kenyatta’s girlfriend Alamonord testified that Appellant told White that Kenyatta planned to rob and beat up White.) Appellant’s counsel asked the trial court’s permission to impeach White’s out-of- court statement to the detective with a certified copy of…”
Mcnair v. The State, 767 S.E.2d 290 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “*482 Except as provided in Code Section 24-8-806, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness shall not be admissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent statement and the opposite party is afforded…”
Sheila Bell Hawkins v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 24-8-806. During the direct examination of Hawkins, the defense introduced into evidence a chart that demonstrated Serene Reflections’s Medicaid billings for Bacon and Wilson, to demonstrate that the amount of money involved would have been too small for Hawkins to have…”
Esprit v. The State (two Cases), 305 Ga. 429 (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Thus, Jones’s plea-hearing statements would have been admissible to impeach his prior statements to Robateau only if they would have been admissible to impeach Jones, had he chosen to testify at the joint trial.”
Paul Serdula v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “For example, OCGA § 24-8-806 provides that “[w]hen a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked and, if attacked, may be supported by any evidence which would be 46 See OCGA § 21-5-2 (“It is declared to be the policy of this…”
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.