O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-183 (2019)

Use of blackboard, models, or similar devices in argument

✓ 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

In the trial of any civil action, counsel for either party shall be permitted to use a blackboard and models or similar devices in connection with his argument to the jury for the purpose of illustrating his contentions with respect to the issues which are to be decided by the jury, provided that counsel shall not in writing present any argument that could not properly be made orally.

History

Ga. L. 1960, p. 1037, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 9.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Counsel permitted to use devices for illustrating contentions to be proved at trial. - Counsel for both parties in a civil case, preliminary to the introduction of evidence, may, under this section, state and use devices for illustrating counsel’s contentions to the jury as to what each expects to prove on the trial. Lewyn v. Morris, 135 Ga. App. 289, 217 S.E.2d 642, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1650 (1975) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-10-183). Challenge not preserved for appeal. - Trial court did not abuse the court’s

discretion by permitting the plaintiffs to use trial boards during opening statement because trial boards were not included in the record on appeal nor did the defendant request that the issue be preserved for appeal. Vineyard Indus. v. Bailey, 343 Ga. App. 517, 806 S.E.2d 898, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 525 (2017), cert. denied, No. S18C0480, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 314 (Ga. May 7, 2018).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 75 Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, § 415 et seq. C.J.S. 88 C.J.S., Trial, § 276 et seq.

ALR. Conduct of jury in nature of demonstration, test, or experiment during authorized view, 150 A.L.R. 958.

Propriety, in trial of civil action, of use of model of object or instrumentality, or of site or premises, involved in the accident or incident, 69 A.L.R.2d 424. Counsel’s use, in trial of personal injury

or wrongful death case, of blackboard, chart, diagram, or placard, not introduced in evidence, relating to damages, 86 A.L.R.2d 239.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Vineyard Indus., Inc. v. Bailey Et Al., 806 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
Vineyard Indus., Inc. v. Bailey Et Al., 806 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “In a civil trial, counsel for either party shall be permitted to use a blackboard and models or similar devices in connection with his argument for the purpose of illustrating his contentions with respect to the issues which are to be *519 decided by the jury, provided that…”
Tench v. Galaxy Appliance & Furniture Sales, Inc., 567 S.E.2d 53 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “(a) Under OCGA § 9-10-183, trial counsel may use blackboards, charts, or models for demonstrative purposes in opening statement, presentation of evidence, and argument for purposes of illustrating the contentions in the case.”
Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Sheriff, 436 S.E.2d 14 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 9-10-183. The trial court has discretion in the control of such matters; appellant has failed to show an abuse of that discretion.”
R. C. Acres, Inc. v. Cambridge Faire Props., LLC, 771 S.E.2d 444 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Assuming without deciding that a visual aid or demonstrative exhibit prepared by counsel, see OCGA § 9-10-183, constitutes “evidence” that could be deemed subject to spoliation, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying cross-appellants’ motion.”
Jason Thomas v. Accurate Steel Rule Cutting Die, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Specifically, he argues, without citing any applicable legal authority, that neither Jeffries’ videotaped deposition nor deposition transcript was admitted into evidence, and therefore the trial court should have prohibited defense counsel from utilizing a PowerPoint during his…”
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.