reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
GA Code § 24-4-407 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-407. Subsequent Remedial Measures

 In civil proceedings, when, after an injury or harm, remedial measures are taken to make such injury or harm less likely to recur, evidence of the remedial measures shall not be admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct but may be admissible to prove product liability under subsection (b) or (c) of Code Section 51-1-11. The provisions of this Code section shall not require the exclusion of evidence of remedial measures when offered for impeachment or for another purpose, including, but not limited to, proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted.    (Code 1981, §24-4-407, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   Cross references.   - Subsequent remedial measures, Fed. R. Evid. 407.   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 24-4-404, which may also be applicable to this Code section.   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Doctor's remedial measure not admissible for impeachment purposes.    - In a medical malpractice case in which the doctor placed a halo device on the patient with the opening in the front, the trial court erred in holding that evidence of the doctor's alleged remedial measure of placing the opening of the halo device in the rear was admissible by the patient for impeachment purposes because the deposition testimony of the president of the company that manufactured the halo device was that there was nothing wrong, from a structural engineering standpoint, with placing the halo opening in the front and that placement decisions were left to the surgeon; and the company president's testimony did not contradict the doctor's later decision to exercise the doctor's discretion to position the halo openings in the rear. Mark v. Agerter, 332 Ga. App. 879, 775 S.E.2d 235 (2015).
GA Code § 24-4-408 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-408. Compromises and Offers to Compromise

  Except as provided in Code Section 9-11-68, evidence of:   Furnishing, offering, or promising to furnish; or   Accepting, offering, or promising to accept  a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount shall not be admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of any claim or its amount.      Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations or mediation shall not be admissible.   This Code section shall not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations or mediation. This Code section shall not require exclusion of evidence offered for another purpose, including, but not limited to, proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negating a contention of undue delay or abuse of process, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.     (Code 1981, §24-4-408, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   Cross references.   - Compromise offers and negotiations, Fed. R. Evid. 408.   Law reviews.   - For annual survey on evidence, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 125 (2013).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   ANALYSIS    General Consideration   Application and Illustrations    RESEARCH REFERENCES   C.J.S.   - 31A C.J.S., Evidence, §§ 388, 395 et seq.   ALR.   - Admissibility of evidence of unperformed compromise agreement, 26 A.L.R.2d 858.   Admissibility of admissions made in connection with offers or discussions of compromise, 15 A.L.R.3d 13.   Admissibility of confession by one accused of felonious homicide, as affected by its inducement through compelling, or threatening to compel, accused to view victim's corpse, 27 A.L.R.3d 1185.   Admissibility, in civil action, of confession or admission which could not be used against party in criminal prosecution because obtained by improper police methods, 43 A.L.R.3d 1375.   Admissibility of defense communications made in connection with plea bargaining, 59 A.L.R.3d 441.
GA Code § 24-4-409 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-409. Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses

 Evidence of furnishing, offering, or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury shall not be admissible to prove liability for the injury.    (Code 1981, §24-4-409, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   Cross references.   - Offers to pay medical and similar expenses, Fed. R. Evid. 409.   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's notes.   - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1 are included in the annotations for this Code section.   Application and illustrations.    - Neither former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-4-408) nor former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-4-416) prevented admitting letter from defendant medical device manufacturer because there was evidence plaintiff patient's surgeon requested that manufacturer pay for third surgery to replace the device, and the letter in response confirmed the terms; further, there was evidence the offer was made to maintain the surgeon's goodwill due to the number of devices the surgeon implanted in patients on a yearly basis. Trickett v. Advanced Neuromodulation Sys., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (S.D. Ga. 2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1)   Evidence properly excluded.    - In a medical negligence action, the trial court properly excluded statements of regret made by the doctor sued pursuant to the plain meaning of former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1(c) (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-4-416), despite the suing patient's claim that such should have been admitted as statements against interest and under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule; moreover, retroactive application was not improper as the Georgia General Assembly intended that the law be applied to cases pending at the time it was passed. Airasian v. Shaak, 289 Ga. App. 540, 657 S.E.2d 600 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1)
GA Code § 24-4-410 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements

 Except as otherwise provided by law, evidence of the following shall not, in any judicial or administrative proceeding, be admissible against the criminal defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:    A plea of guilty which was later withdrawn;   A plea of nolo contendere;   Any statement made in the course of any proceedings in which a guilty plea or a plea of nolo contendere was entered and was later withdrawn, vacated, or set aside; or   Any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, vacated, or set aside;  provided, however, that the statements described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this Code section shall be admissible in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it or in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the accused under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel or after the accused voluntarily waived his or her right to counsel.      (Code 1981, §24-4-410, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   Cross references.   - Pleas, plea discussions, and related statements, Fed. R. Evid. 410.   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 Sections 17-7-93 and 17-7-95, which may also be applicable to this Code section.   Law reviews.   - For article, "The Meaning of a Misdemeanor in a Post-Ferguson World: Evaluating the Reliability of Prior Conviction Evidence," see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 927 (2020).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Withdrawn guilty plea not admissible.    - In two cousins' trial for the murder of a drug dealer, cousin one's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to seek admission of statements that cousin two made, which exonerated cousin one, when cousin two attempted to plead guilty because under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-93(b) (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-4-410), cousin two's withdrawn guilty plea was not admissible. Esprit v. State, 305 Ga. 429, 826 S.E.2d 7 (2019).
GA Code § 24-4-411 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-411. Liability Insurance

 In all civil proceedings involving a claim for damages, evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability shall not be admissible except as provided in this Code section. This Code section shall not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability in proceedings under Code Section 40-1-112 or when such evidence is offered for a relevant purpose, including, but not limited to, proof of agency, ownership, or control, and the court finds that the danger of unfair prejudice is substantially outweighed by the probative value of the evidence.    (Code 1981, §24-4-411, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24; Ga. L. 2013, p. 141, § 24/HB 79.)    The 2013 amendment,  effective April 24, 2013, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "Code Section 40-1-112" for "Code Section 46-7-12" in the second sentence of this Code section.   Cross references.   - Liability insurance for performance of educational duties authorized, § 20-2-991.   Liability insurance, Fed. R. Evid. 411.   Law reviews.   - For annual survey on evidence law, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 97 (2018).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Testimony from passenger on receipt of settlement.    - Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by ruling that a second passenger's testimony was admissible because the jury heard no direct evidence regarding the defendant's liability insurance, only that the second passenger and others had received money to settle any claims against the defendant and that the truck driver had not paid any money and the court properly balanced the plaintiff's interest in showing that the second passenger could possibly be biased against the defendant's interest. Brown v. Tucker, 337 Ga. App. 704, 788 S.E.2d 810 (2016).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Abuse and Molestation Exclusion in Liability Insurance Policies, 57 A.L.R.7th 1.
GA Code § 24-4-414 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-414. Evidence of Similar Transaction Crimes in Child Molestation Cases

  In a criminal proceeding in which the accused is accused of an offense of child molestation, evidence of the accused's commission of another offense of child molestation shall be admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.   In a proceeding in which the state intends to offer evidence under this Code section, the prosecuting attorney shall disclose the evidence to the accused, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that the prosecuting attorney expects to offer, at least ten days in advance of trial, unless the time is shortened or lengthened or pretrial notice is excused by the judge upon good cause shown.   This Code section shall not be the exclusive means to admit or consider evidence described under this Code section.   As used in this Code section, the term "offense of child molestation" means any conduct or attempt or conspiracy to engage in:   Conduct that would be a violation of Code Section 16-6-4, 16-6-5, 16-12-100, 16-12-100.2, or 16-12-100.3;   Any crime that involves contact between any part of the accused's body or an object and the genitals or anus of a child;   Any crime that involves contact between the genitals or anus of the accused and any part of the body of a child; or   Any crime that involves deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from the infliction of death, bodily injury, or physical pain on a child.       (Code 1981, §24-4-414, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   Cross references.   - Similar crimes in child-molestation cases, Fed. R. Evid. 414.   Notice of prosecution's intent to present evidence of similar transactions, Ga. S. Ct. R. 31.3.   Law reviews.   - For annual survey on evidence law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 101 (2017).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   ANALYSIS    General Consideration   Other Crimes   Time Lapse    RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Necessity of Expert Testimony on Grooming Behavior Involving Sexual Conduct with Child, 53 A.L.R.7th 3.
GA Code § 24-4-416 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-416. Statements of Sympathy in Medical Malpractice Cases

  As used in this Code section, the term "health care provider" means any person licensed under Chapter 9, 10A, 11, 11A, 26, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 39, or 44 of Title 43 or any hospital, nursing home, home health agency, institution, or medical facility licensed or defined under Chapter 7 of Title 31. The term shall also include any corporation, professional corporation, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, authority, or other entity composed of such health care providers.   In any claim or civil proceeding brought by or on behalf of a patient allegedly experiencing an unanticipated outcome of medical care, any and all statements, affirmations, gestures, activities, or conduct expressing regret, apology, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion, mistake, error, or a general sense of benevolence which is made by a health care provider or an employee or agent of a health care provider to the patient, a relative of the patient, or a representative of the patient and which relates to the unanticipated outcome shall be inadmissible as evidence and shall not constitute an admission of liability or an admission against interest.     (Code 1981, §24-4-416, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24; Ga. L. 2013, p. 141, § 24/HB 79.)    The 2013 amendment,  effective April 24, 2013, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "composed of" for "comprised of" in the last sentence of subsection (a).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.    - Admissibility in action for malpractice, of evidence as to reputation of physician or surgeon for skill and care, 48 A.L.R. 249.
GA Code § 24-4-418 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-418. Admissibility of Criminal Gang Activity, Disclosure

  In a criminal proceeding in which the accused is accused of conducting or participating in criminal gang activity in violation of Code Section 16-15-4, evidence of the accused's commission of criminal gang activity, as such term is defined in Code Section 16-15-3, shall be admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.   In a proceeding in which the prosecution intends to offer evidence under this Code section, the prosecutor shall disclose such evidence to the accused, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, at least ten days in advance of trial, unless the time is shortened or lengthened or pretrial notice is excused by the judge upon good cause shown.   This Code section shall not be the exclusive means to admit or consider evidence described in this Code section.     (Code 1981, §24-4-418, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 793, § 6/HB 874.)
GA Code § 24-4-419 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 4 - Relevant Evidence and Its Limits|§ 24-4-419. Admission of Criminal History Record Information

  As used in this Code section, the term "criminal history record information" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 35-3-30.   In a civil proceeding against an employer, its employees, or its agents based on the conduct of an employee or former employee, criminal history record information shall not be admissible if:   The nature of such criminal history record information is not relevant to the facts underlying such proceeding or the veracity of the witness;   Prior to the act giving rise to such proceedings, criminal history record information was restricted or sealed as provided in Code Section 35-3-37, or a pardon for such conduct was granted; or   Such criminal history information is for an arrest or charge that did not result in a conviction.       (Code 1981, §24-4-419, enacted by Ga. L. 2020, p. 753, § 3-1/SB 288.)
GA Code § 24-5-504 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 5 - Privileges|§ 24-5-504. Law Enforcement Officers Testifying; Home Address

 Any law enforcement officer testifying in his or her official capacity in any criminal proceeding shall not be compelled to reveal his or her home address. Such officer may be required to divulge the business address of his or her employer, and the court may require any law enforcement officer to answer questions as to his or her home address whenever such fact may be material to any issue in the proceeding.    (Code 1981, §24-5-504, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Right to cross-examine witness as to his place of residence, 85 A.L.R.3d 541.
GA Code § 24-5-510 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 5 - Privileges|§ 24-5-510. Privileged Communications Between Law Enforcement Officers and Peer Counselors

  As used in this Code section, the term:   "Client" means a public safety officer.   "Peer counselor" means:   An employee of the Office of Public Safety Support within the Department of Public Safety; or   An individual who is certified by the support coordinator of the Office of Public Safety Support within the Department of Public Safety pursuant to subsection (b) of Code Section 35-2-163 who is an employee of a public entity that employs public safety officers and who is designated by the executive head of such public entity.     "Public entity" shall have the same meaning as provided for in Code Section 35-2-160.   "Public safety officer" means a peace officer, correctional officer, emergency health worker, firefighter, highway emergency response operator, jail officer, juvenile correctional officer, probation officer, or emergency services dispatcher.     Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, communications between a client and a peer counselor shall be privileged.A peer counselor shall not disclose any such communications made to him or her and shall not be competent or compellable to testify with reference to any such communications in any court.   The privilege created by subsection (b) of this Code section shall not apply when:   The disclosure is authorized by the client, or if the client is deceased, by his or her executor or administrator, and if an executor or administrator is not appointed, by the client's next of kin;   Compelled by court order;   The peer counselor was an initial responding public safety officer, witness, or party to an act that is the subject of the counseling;   The communication was made when the peer counselor was not performing official duties; or   The client is charged with a crime.     The privilege created by this Code section shall not be grounds to fail to comply with mandatory reporting requirements as set forth in Code Section 19-7-5 or Chapter 5 of Title 30, the "Disabled Adults and Elder Persons Protection Act."     (Code 1981, §24-5-510, enacted by Ga. L. 2014, p. 339, § 1/HB 872; Ga. L. 2018, p. 716, § 1/HB 703; Ga. L. 2020, p. 493, § 24/SB 429; Ga. L. 2020, p. 671, § 1/HB 838.)   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2018, p. 716, § 3/HB 703, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the 2018 amendment becomes effective only when funds are specifically appropriated for purposes of this Act, in an Appropriations Act. When funds are so appropriated, then the amendment shall become effective on the later of the date on which such Appropriations Act becomes effective or the beginning date of the fiscal year for which such appropriations are made. Funds were appropriated at the 2019 Session of the General Assembly.
GA Code § 24-7-705 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 7 - Opinions and Expert Testimony|§ 24-7-705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion

 An expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. An expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.    (Code 1981, §24-7-705, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   Cross references.   - Disclosing the facts or data underlying an expert's opinion, Fed. R. Evid. 705.
GA Code § 24-7-706 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 7 - Opinions and Expert Testimony|§ 24-7-706. Court Appointed Experts

 Except as provided in Chapter 7 of Title 9 or Code Section 17-7-130.1, 17-10-66, 29-4-11, 29-5-11, 31-14-3, 31-20-3, 44-6-166.1, 44-6-184, or 44-6-187, the following procedures shall govern the appointment, compensation, and presentation of testimony of court appointed experts:    The court on its own motion or on the motion of any party may enter an order to show cause why any expert witness should not be appointed and may request the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties and may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the court unless the witness consents to act. Each appointed expert witness shall be informed of his or her duties by the court in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. Each appointed expert witness shall advise the parties of his or her findings, if any. Except as provided in Article 3 of Chapter 12 or Article 6 of Chapter 13 of this title, such witness's deposition may be taken by any party. Such witness may be called to testify by the court or any party. Each expert witness shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling the witness;   Appointed expert witnesses shall be entitled to reasonable compensation in whatever sum the court allows. The compensation fixed shall be payable from funds which may be provided by law in criminal proceedings and civil proceedings involving just compensation for the taking of property. In other civil proceedings, the compensation shall be paid by the parties in such proportion and at such time as the court directs and thereafter charged in like manner as other costs;   In the exercise of its discretion, the court may authorize disclosure to the jury of the fact that the court appointed the expert witness; and   Nothing in this Code section shall limit a party in calling expert witnesses of the party's own selection.     (Code 1981, §24-7-706, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24; Ga. L. 2012, p. 97, § 3/HB 744.)   Cross references.   - Court appointed expert witnesses, Fed. R. Evid. 706.    The 2012 amendment,  effective January 1, 2013, substituted "44-6-166.1, 44-6-184, or 44-6-187," for "or 44-6-166.1," near the middle of the introductory paragraph.   Code Commission notes.   - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2011, "and proceedings" was deleted following "civil proceedings" in the second sentence of paragraph (2).   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2012, p. 97, § 1/HB 744, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act.'"