---
title: O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701. Lay witness opinion testimony.
collection: code
id: 24-7-701
cite_as: O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701 (2025)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/24-7-701
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/24-7-701.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/24-7-701/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/t24-ch1-7-(v20)-2023-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=27d520aa_0#page=677
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/code/24-7.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/code/24-6-658.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/code/24-7-702.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: EVIDENCE / OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
---

# O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701. Lay witness opinion testimony.

(a) If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences shall be limited to those opinions or inferences which are:

(1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness;

(2) Helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue; and

(3) Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Code Section 24-7-702.

(b) Direct testimony as to market value is in the nature of opinion evidence. A witness need not be an expert or dealer in an article or property to testify as to its value if he or she has had an opportunity to form a reasoned opinion.

## History

Code 1981, § 24-7-701, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.

## Cross References

Opinion testimony by lay witnessess, Fed. R. Evid. 701.

## Law Reviews

For comment on Caldwell v. State, 82 Ga. App. 480, 61 S.E.2d 543 (1950), see 14 Ga. B.J. 241 (1951).

For article analyzing Georgia business entries provisions, see 4 Mercer L. Rev. 313 (1953).

For comment on Corley v. Russell, 92 Ga. App. 417, 88 S.E.2d 470 (1955), holding that the opinion of an expert is inadmissible in a negligence action, as that is the very issue the jury is impaneled to try, see 18 Ga. B.J. 338 (1956).

For comment on Northwestern Univ. v. Crisp, 211 Ga. 636, 88 S.E.2d 26 (1955), concerning the admissibility of lay opinions regarding the sanity of a testator, see 19 Ga. B.J. 82 (1956).

For comment discussing the use of hypothetical questions to avoid the requirements of first-hand knowledge, see 19 Ga. B.J. 346 (1957).

For comment on Western & A.R.R. v. Hart, 95 Ga. App. 810, 99 S.E.2d 302 (1957), holding that the accuracy of the opinion of a 12-year-old as to the speed of a train is a matter for the jury to decide and its admission into evidence was not error, see 20 Ga. B.J. 395 (1958).

For comment on Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga. App. 328, 147 S.E.2d 782 (1966), see 3 Ga. St. B.J. 476 (1967).

For comment on Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga. App. 328, 147 S.E.2d 782 (1966), see 3 Ga. St. B.J. 476 (1967).

For note on admissibility of expert psychological testimony in Georgia, see 4 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 117 (1988).

For annual survey of evidence law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 235 (2004); 57 Mercer L. Rev. 187 (2005); and 58 Mercer L. Rev. 151 (2006).

For annual 11th Circuit survey of evidence law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 1273 (2005); and 57 Mercer L. Rev. 1083 (2006).

## History of Section.

Former Code Section 24-9-66, which contained comparable provisions to subsection (b) of this Code section, as effective January 1, 2013, was derived from the decision in Central R.R. & Banking Co. v. Skellie, 86 Ga. 686, 12 S.E. 1017 (1891).