When can evidence be excluded in Georgia even if it is relevant?

Evidence can be excluded in Georgia even if it is relevant when it may mislead the jury or confuse issues. This principle is grounded in the idea that relevance alone does not justify the admission of evidence; the potential for evidence to distort the jury's understanding of the case or to distract from the material facts is a significant concern. Courts aim to ensure that the focus remains on the pertinent facts that assist the jury in making informed decisions.

When considering this criterion, judges weigh the probative value of the evidence against its potential prejudicial effects. If there's a strong possibility that the evidence might cause confusion or lead the jury to draw improper conclusions, it is within the court's discretion to exclude it despite its relevance.

In contrast, the other options do not meet the criteria for exclusion based on Georgia's rules of evidence. Evidence being overly tedious does not inherently justify exclusion unless it is deemed unnecessarily cumulative or disproportionately burdensome relative to its value. The fact that evidence is brought up by a defendant does not affect its admissibility; all parties should be judged equally in terms of their evidence. Lastly, lack of corroboration does not automatically exclude evidence; while it may impact credibility, it does not affect admissibility based solely on the presence or absence of supporting evidence.