24-7-701. Lay witness opinion testimony.

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

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

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).