[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/georgia-court-of-appeals-disapproves-pattern-charge-on-preponderance-of-evidence\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/georgia-court-of-appeals-disapproves-pattern-charge-on-preponderance-of-evidence\/","headline":"Georgia Court of Appeals Disapproves Pattern Charge on Preponderance of Evidence","name":"Georgia Court of Appeals Disapproves Pattern Charge on Preponderance of Evidence","description":"The Georgia Court of Appeals recently disapproved the pattern charge on preponderance of the evidence, holding that since it was based on the pre-2013 evidence code and referred to the reasonable-doubt standard, the charge was not a correct statement of the law.\u00a0 Specifically, the court held that “we conclude that the trial court’s jury instruction… Continue reading Georgia Court of Appeals Disapproves Pattern Charge on Preponderance of Evidence<\/span><\/a>","datePublished":"2023-11-28","dateModified":"2026-04-17","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/author\/butler\/#Person","name":"Jeb Butler","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/author\/butler\/","identifier":9,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a02bc71d91db5fc8645f129c4424ce6ef7af7e24fe54f4a85315a9dd28f317?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a02bc71d91db5fc8645f129c4424ce6ef7af7e24fe54f4a85315a9dd28f317?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Butler Kahn","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Butler-Law-Firm-Logo.png","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Butler-Law-Firm-Logo.png","width":210,"height":93}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Thumbnail-for-Preponderance-Charge-in-Georgia.jpg","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Thumbnail-for-Preponderance-Charge-in-Georgia.jpg","height":504,"width":844},"url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/georgia-court-of-appeals-disapproves-pattern-charge-on-preponderance-of-evidence\/","video":{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"VideoObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=421HWt4ElsU#VideoObject","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=421HWt4ElsU","name":"Georgia Court of Appeals Disapproves Pattern Jury Charge for Preponderance of the Evidence","description":"The Georgia Court of Appeals recently disapproved the pattern charge on preponderance of the evidence, holding that since it was based on the pre-2013 evidence code and referred to the reasonable-doubt standard, the charge was not a correct statement of the law.\u00a0 Specifically, the court held that \"we conclude that the trial court's jury instruction was improper even though it tracked the language of\u00a0former O.C.G.A. \u00a7 24-1-1(5) and Georgia's current suggested pattern jury instruction.\"\u00a0 The case is White v. Stanley, 893 S.E. 2d 466, 471 (2023).\n\nAttorney Tom Giannotti and I found out about the disapproval a few days before we were set to start trial and a few days after the opinion was issued.\u00a0 Fortunately, the Court of Appeals gave some thoughtful suggestions about what the correct charge would be.\u00a0 White discussed and relied upon federal law, which is unsurprising since Georgia's revised post-2013 evidence code is based on the federal code.\u00a0 Specifically,\u00a0White quoted the Eleventh Circuit with approval for the proposition that \"the burden of showing something by a preponderance of of the evidence simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence,\" and quoted the Georgia Supreme Court for the proposition that \"proof by a preponderance simply requires that the evidence show that something is more likely true than not.\"\n\nIn case it is helpful, our firm has prepared a special request to charge based on the\u00a0White court's holding.\u00a0 It tracks the federal pattern jury instruction on the preponderance of the evidence and cites\u00a0White.\u00a0 It is available on our website at https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Special-Charge-re-Preponderance-of-Evidence-Georgia.pdf.","thumbnailUrl":["https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/421HWt4ElsU\/default.jpg","https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/421HWt4ElsU\/mqdefault.jpg","https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/421HWt4ElsU\/hqdefault.jpg","https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/421HWt4ElsU\/sddefault.jpg"],"uploadDate":"2023-11-28T21:50:53+00:00","duration":"PT4M55S","embedUrl":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/421HWt4ElsU","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCeMYGr94Sf4LpYwIcO3P2Qw#Organization","url":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCeMYGr94Sf4LpYwIcO3P2Qw","name":"Butler Kahn","description":"We help people and families.\n\nOur firm specializes in personal injury and wrongful death cases. We are based in Atlanta, Georgia. We handle cases across Georgia and, for certain types of cases, all across the country.\n\nTOP-QUALITY LEGAL WORK. We do the work that lots of law firms skip. We track down witnesses, dig into the evidence, and prepare intensely for every deposition, trial, and hearing. We take a small number of cases so that we can devote our full attention to the clients we represent.\n\nPERSONAL SERVICE. If you hire us, you get us. You won't get blocked by a receptionist or leave unreturned messages. If you want to speak with your lawyer, you can.\n\nDOING WHAT WE SAY WE'LL DO. Some law firms make big promises at the beginning, then don\u2019t follow through. We shoot straight \u2013 when we tell you something about your case, good or bad, we mean it. No fake promises.\n\nButler Kahn\n10 Lenox Pointe\nAtlanta, GA 30324\n678-940-1444\n","logo":{"url":"https:\/\/yt3.ggpht.com\/NTOsbNEALVOnRbUCg7jUzYGcC4kNKsUTEVHm5TtiTQdLlfFKksLTnmiZG_t6zDG_e4ygtnva=s800-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj","width":800,"height":800,"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=421HWt4ElsU#VideoObject_publisher_logo_ImageObject"}},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=421HWt4ElsU#VideoObject_potentialAction","target":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=421HWt4ElsU&t={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"},"interactionStatistic":[[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=421HWt4ElsU#VideoObject_interactionStatistic_WatchAction","interactionType":{"@type":"WatchAction"},"userInteractionCount":119}],{"@type":"InteractionCounter","@id":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=421HWt4ElsU#VideoObject_interactionStatistic_LikeAction","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":6}]},"about":["Uncategorized"],"wordCount":272,"articleBody":"The Georgia Court of Appeals recently disapproved the pattern charge on preponderance of the evidence, holding that since it was based on the pre-2013 evidence code and referred to the reasonable-doubt standard, the charge was not a correct statement of the law.\u00a0 Specifically, the court held that “we conclude that the trial court’s jury instruction was improper even though it tracked the language of\u00a0former O.C.G.A. \u00a7 24-1-1(5) and Georgia’s current suggested pattern jury instruction.”\u00a0 The case is White v. Stanley, 893 S.E. 2d 466, 471 (2023).Attorney Tom Giannotti and I found out about the disapproval a few days before we were set to start trial and a few days after the opinion was issued.\u00a0 Fortunately, the Court of Appeals gave some thoughtful suggestions about what the correct charge would be.\u00a0 White discussed and relied upon federal law, which is unsurprising since Georgia’s revised post-2013 evidence code is based on the federal code.\u00a0 Specifically,\u00a0White quoted the Eleventh Circuit with approval for the proposition that “the burden of showing something by a preponderance of of the evidence simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence,” and quoted the Georgia Supreme Court for the proposition that “proof by a preponderance simply requires that the evidence show that something is more likely true than not.”In case it is helpful, our firm has prepared a special request to charge based on the\u00a0White court’s holding.\u00a0 It tracks the federal pattern jury instruction on the preponderance of the evidence and cites\u00a0White.\u00a0 It is available here.  "},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Blog","item":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/#breadcrumbitem"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Georgia Court of Appeals Disapproves Pattern Charge on Preponderance of Evidence","item":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/georgia-court-of-appeals-disapproves-pattern-charge-on-preponderance-of-evidence\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]