The following shall not be excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
History. Code 1981, § 24-8-803 , enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.
Cross references.
Classification of confidential and privileged materials from department and county boards of health, § 31-5-5.
Certified copies of vital records, § 31-10-26.
Acquiescence as establishing dividing line in real property, § 44-4-6.
Transmittal of copy of exempted real property to other counties and recordation, § 44-13-11 .
Exceptions to the rule against hearsay—regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness, Fed. R. Evid. 803.
Law reviews.
For article advocating admissibility of business entries, see 14 Ga. B.J. 7 (1951).
For article analyzing Georgia business entries provisions, see 4 Mercer L. Rev. 313 (1953).
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, “Business Entries as Evidence,” see 16 Ga. B.J. 383 (1954).
For article, “Decisions Under the Georgia Business Records Act of 1952,” see 21 Ga. B.J. 211 (1958).
For article, “Evidence from Computers,” see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 562 (1974).
For article, “The Demise of the Corroboration Requirement — Its History in Georgia Rape Law,” see 26 Emory L.J. 805 (1977).
For article, “The Admissibility of Computer-Generated Evidence in Georgia,” see 18 Ga. St. B.J. 137 (1982).
For article, “The Need For a Special Exception to the Hearsay Rule in Child Sexual Abuse Cases,” see 21 Ga. St. B.J. 50 (1984).
For article, “An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Statements to Mental Health Professionals Under the Diagnosis or Treatment Hearsay Exception,” see 33 Ga. L. Rev. 353 (1999).
For article, “Evidence,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 281 (2001).
For article, “State of Emergency: Why Georgia’s Standard of Care in Emergency Rooms is Harmful to Your Health,” see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 275 (2010).
For article, “Evidence,” see 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (2011).
For article, “Georgia’s New Evidence Code: After the Celebration, a Serious Review of Anticipated Subjects of Litigation to be Brought on by the New Legislation,” see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2012).
For annual survey on evidence law, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 137 (2012).
For annual survey on insurance law, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 151 (2012).
For article, “Symposium on Evidence Reform: The Curious Case of Differing Literary Emphases: The Contrast Between the Use of Scientific Publications at Pretrial Daubert Hearings and at Trial,” see 47 Ga. L. Rev. 837 (2013).
For annual survey on evidence, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 125 (2013).
For annual survey of evidence law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 63 (2015).
For article, “2014 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments,” see 20 Ga. St. Bar. J. 26 (April 2015).
For annual survey on evidence law, see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 103 (2019).
For article, “Confronting Memory Loss,” see 55 Ga. L. Rev. 95 (2020).
For article with annual survey on evidence, see 73 Mercer L. Rev. 111 (2021).
For note discussing res gestae, see 3 Ga. B.J. 69 (1940).
For note, “Hypnosis in Court: A Memory Aid for Witnesses,” see 1 Ga. L. Rev. 268 (1967).
For comment on Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 , 99 S.E.2d 370 , 374 (1957), holding that the Georgia business records as evidence statute does not authorize the introduction into evidence of papers containing the opinion of experts or physicians when the party in whose interest the papers are offered is not allowed to examine their author, see 20 Ga. B.J. 381 (1958).
For comment on Yarbrough v. Cantex Mfg. Co., 97 Ga. App. 392 , 103 S.E.2d 130 (1958), see 22 Ga. B.J. 100 (1959).
For comment on Smith v. Morning News, Inc., 99 Ga. App. 547 , 109 S.E.2d 639 (1959), see 22 Ga. B.J. 380 (1960).
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).