2022 Georgia Code
Title 24 - Evidence
Chapter 8 - Hearsay
Article 1 - General Provisions
§ 24-8-801. Definitions

As used in this chapter, the term:

1. “Statement” means:
   1. An oral or written assertion; or
   2. Nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.
2. “Declarant” means a person who makes a statement.
3. “Hearsay” means a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
4. “Hearsay” shall be subject to the following exclusions and conditions:
   1. Prior statement by witness.
      1. An out-of-court statement shall not be hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing, is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement or a prior consistent statement under Code Section 24-6-613 or is otherwise admissible under this chapter.
      2. If a hearsay statement is admitted and the declarant does not testify at the trial or hearing, other out-of-court statements of the declarant shall be admissible for the limited use of impeaching or rehabilitating the credibility of the declarant, and not as substantive evidence, if the other statements qualify as prior inconsistent statements or prior consistent statements under Code Section 24-6-613.
      3. A statement shall not be hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; and
   2. Admissions by party-opponent.    Admissions shall not be excluded by the hearsay rule. An admission is a statement offered against a party which is:
      1. The party’s own statement, in either an individual or representative capacity;
      2. A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;
      3. A statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;
      4. A statement by the party’s agent or employee, but not including any agent of the state in a criminal proceeding, concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; or
      5. A statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy, including a statement made during the concealment phase of a conspiracy. A conspiracy need not be charged in order to make a statement admissible under this subparagraph.

         The contents of the statement shall be considered but shall not alone be sufficient to establish the declarant’s authority under subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subparagraph (E) of this paragraph.

5. “Public office” means:
   1. Every state department, agency, board, bureau, commission, division, public corporation, and authority;
   2. Every county, municipal corporation, school district, or other political subdivision of this state;
   3. Every department, agency, board, bureau, commission, authority, or similar body of each such county, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of this state; and
   4. Every city, county, regional, or other authority established pursuant to the laws of this state.
6. “Public official” means an elected or appointed official.
7. “Public record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form and created in the course of the operation of a public office.

History. Code 1981, § 24-8-801 , enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.

Cross references.

Failure to deny averments in pleading as constituting admission, § 9-11-8(d) .

Definitions that apply to this article; exclusions from hearsay, Fed. R. Evid. 801.

Law reviews.

For article discussing exceptions to the hearsay rule and advocating elimination of the res gestae exception, see 5 Mercer L. Rev. 257 (1954).

For article, “Evidence from Computers,” see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 562 (1974).

For article, “An Analysis of Georgia’s Proposed Rules of Evidence,” see 26 Ga. St. B.J. 173 (1990).

For article, “The New ‘Necessity Exception’ to the Hearsay Rule in Georgia: A New Rule of Inclusion?,” see 16 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 573 (2000).

For article, “Evidence,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 281 (2001).

For article, “Wills, Trusts & Administration of Estates,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 499 (2001).

For annual survey on evidence, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 125 (2013).

For annual survey on criminal law, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 63 (2018).

For article, “Parallel Proceedings,” see 25 Ga. St. B.J. 20 (Feb. 2020).

For note, “Lilly v. Virginia: Answering the Williamson Question — Is the Statement Against Penal Interest Exception ‘Firmly Rooted’ Under Confrontation Clause Analysis?,” see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 1343 (2000).

For comment on Brewer v. Henson, 96 Ga. App. 501 , 100 S.E.2d 661 (1957), holding that statements made by patient to physician which are not equivalent to spontaneous and voluntary expressions of present pain and suffering are not admissible as evidence, see 21 Ga. B.J. 97 (1958).

For comment on Moore v. Atlanta Transit Sys., 105 Ga. App. 70 , 123 S.E.2d 693 (1961), see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 445 (1963).

For comment as to admissibility of evidence of a criminal conviction in a civil action arising out of the same factual situation, in light of Hurtt v. Stirone, 416 Pa. 493, 206 A.2d 624 (1965), see 16 Mercer L. Rev. 464 (1965).

For comment on Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S. Ct. 210 , 27 L. Ed. 2 d 213 (1970), and Georgia’s coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 791 (1971).

For comment on Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Allen, 123 Ga. App. 741 , 182 S.E.2d 508 (1971), upholding admission of psychiatric opinion based on subjective declarations of patient, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 554 (1972).

For comment, “24-3-2: Evidence to Explain Conduct and Ascertain Motive Gets Disciplined,” see 36 Mercer L. Rev. 733 (1985).