We therefore cannot reach the question of whether service only by publication under OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3) violates due-process principles. See, e.g., State v. Randall, 318 Ga. 79, 82-83 (897 S.E.2d 444) (2024) (explaining that when there is a basis on which to resolve a claim without reaching a novel constitutional argument, courts generally should do so).
We do not reach these questions because we are able to resolve the merits of this appeal on the statutory arguments presented in support of Global’s claims of error. State v. Randall, 318 Ga. 79, 81 (2), 897 S.E.2d 444 (2024) ("Generally speaking, this Court will not reach novel constitutional questions when a case can be resolved without passing on such issues."). [3] 2. The state court erroneously concluded that Global is a "financial institution" as defined in OCGA § 18-4-1 (4), and that Lattimore therefore used the correct form of garnishment summons when initiating this garnishment action.
"[O]f course, the trial court must address whether … evidence is relevant under OCGA § 24-4-401 before determining whether its probative value (of course, irrelevant evidence can have no probative value) is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403." States v. Randall, 318 Ga. 79, 82 (2) n.3, 897 S.E.2d 444 (2024); see also OCGA § 24-4-401 (defining "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence"); OCGA § 24-4-402 ("Rule 402") ("Evidence which is not relevant shall not be admissible."). And Rule 418 itself provides that evidence otherwise admissible under that rule may be considered only "for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant."
And in remanding one of those cases to the trial court, our Supreme Court stated, "[w]e emphasize that, in vacating the trial court's ruling in this case, we express no opinion about the important and difficult constitutional questions that remain unresolved." 318 Ga. 79 (897 S.E.2d 444) (2024) ("Randall II"); 315 Ga. 198 (880 S.E.2d 134) (2022) ("Randall I"). See Randall II, 318 Ga. at 79 (exercising jurisdiction over a case in which the trial court held that admission of a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test violated his rights under the United States and Georgia Constitutions, but remanding the case to the trial court to address the admissibility of such evidence under OCGA § 24-4-403); Randall I, 315 Ga. at 198-99 (exercising jurisdiction over a case in which the State challenged the trial court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss evidence of his refusal to submit to a blood test, but finding that ruling on the issue was unnecessary).