The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of the truth. O.C.G.A. § 24-1-2. There are rules of evidence that determine what type of evidence is admissible during a trial. The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the judge, and the judge's decisions concerning the admission of evidence will not be reversed on appeal unless the judge abuses that discretion. Smith v. State, 265 Ga. App. 236 (2004); Holowiak v. State, 308 Ga. App. 887 (2011). The judge is a “minister of justice whose duty is to govern the progress of the trial and where possible, to prevent the introduction of redundant or inadmissible matters.” Crisp v. State, 310 Ga. App. 98 (2011); Coleman v. State, 160 Ga.
App. 158 (1981).
Georgia law favors the admission of relevant evidence no matter how slight it's probative value. Scales v. State, 310 Ga. App. 48 (2011). Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or to disprove a material fact at issue, and every act or circumstance which serves to explain or throw light upon a material issue is relevant. Sailor v. State, 265 Ga. App. 645 (2004). Even when the relevancy is doubtful, the evidence should be admitted, and its weight left to the determination of the jury. Mims v. State, 314 Ga. App. 170 (2012). However, an exception exists if the potential for prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence. State v. Adams, 270 Ga. App. 878 (2004); O.C.G.A. §§ 24-4-101- 24-4-103.
Direct evidence is evidence which points directly to the question at issue. Lynch v. State, 291 Ga. 555 (2012). Direct evidence is evidence which is consistent with either the conclusion offered by the person offering the evidence or its opposite conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is consistent with both the proposed conclusion and its opposite. Rockholt v. State, 291 Ga. 85 (2012); Stubbs v. State, 265 Ga. 883 (1995). To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. OCGA § 24-14-6. Gittens v. State, 307 Ga. 841 (2020). Eyewitness testimony based on the witness's firsthand observations of the crime is direct, not circumstantial, evidence.
OBJECTIONS & MISTRIALS
If a party believes that inadmissible evidence is being offered into evidence, that party must raise an objection. Brown v. State, 310 Ga. App. 835 (2011);
Whitehead v. State, 287 Ga. 242 (2010). Otherwise, the issue will be considered waived on appeal. O.C.G.A. § 24-1-103. “In order to raise on appeal an error regarding the admissibility of evidence, the specific ground of objection must be made at the time the evidence is offered, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of that specific ground." Fraser v. State, A14A0863; Knight v. State, 311 Ga. App. 367 (2011); Keaton v. State, 311 Ga. App. 14 (2011).
An appeals court is a court for the correction of errors of law committed by the judge where proper objection is made. The appeals courts will not consider objections not raised at trial. Bryant v. State, 288 Ga. 876 (2011). An issue raised by a co- defendant at trial does not preserve the issue for another co-defendant who does not join in the objection. Cox v. State, 242 Ga. App. 334 (2000). If a timely objection is made, the lawyer does not have to renew the objection at the end of the case. Sledge v. State, 312 Ga. App. 97 (2011).
Failing to object to evidence which is introduced after a pre-trial motion concerning its admissibility does not waive the grounds for the motion to suppress. However, affirmatively stating that there is no objection in effect concedes the point and waives the grounds of the motion to suppress. Lightsey v. State, 316 Ga. App. 573 (2012); Williams v. State, 314 Ga. App. 840 (2012); Monroe v. State, 272 Ga. 201 (2000).
The attorney must also make sure there is a record of the objection. During trial, jury selection, opening statements, and closing arguments may not be transcribed by the court reporter. If there is an objection during any of these parts of a trial it is important that the objection be put on the record. Maxwell v. State, 267 Ga. App. 227 (2004 ); Jupiter v. State, 308 Ga. App. 386 (2011). Further, where the error alleged is that certain evidence has been wrongfully excluded (not allowed into evidence) there must have been a proffer or offer of proof as to what the evidence would have been so that both the judge and the appellate court can know whether the evidence really exists. Gawlak v. State, 310 Ga. App. 757 (2011). The record must show what questions would have been asked or what answers were expected of the witness. French v. State, 288 Ga. App. 775 (2007); Holder v. State, 242 Ga. App. 479 (2000). In the absence of such a proffer, the error is so incomplete as to prevent its consideration on appeal. Miceli v. State, 308 Ga. App. 225 (2011); See Appendix A, HB 24, O.C.G.A. § 24-1-103.
An attorney who seeks to have the judge give an instruction to the jury limiting its consideration of certain evidence must request the limiting instruction at the time the evidence is offered. The attorney cannot rely upon an earlier request for a limiting instruction that was granted at the time that the evidence was determined to be admissible. Smith v. State, 290 Ga. 768 (2012).
Sometimes an attorney may believe that the harm that has been done cannot be repaired in a way to allow the trial to be fair. Attorneys refer to this as a situation where you cannot un-ring the bell. The Georgia Supreme Court has recognized that “jurors, like other human beings, are unconsciously too much affected by strong mental impressions for these impressions to be nicely segregated from the mass of evidence.” Murphy v. State, 290 Ga. 459 (2012);
Chumley v. State, 282 Ga. 855 (2008). In these circumstances the party can move for a mistrial.
Whether to grant a mistrial is a matter within the discretion of the judge, and that discretion will not be interfered with on appeal unless it is apparent that a mistrial was essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial. Warren v State, 314 Ga. App. 477 (2012); Belton v. State, 270 Ga. 671 (1999). The judge has the discretion to decide whether a mistrial is the only corrective measure to take or whether proper curative instructions withdrawing the testimony from the jury's consideration can correct the prejudicial effect. Smith v. State, 288 Ga. 348 (2010). The party who requested the mistrial must object to the curative instruction or renew the motion for a mistrial after the curative instruction. Warren v. State, 314 Ga. App. 477 (2012); Maudlin v. State, 313 Ga. App. 228 (2011).