Case ID: ga_262/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per curiam. Weltner, Presiding Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

S91G1022.
    SALLEY v. THE STATE.
    (412 SE2d 836)
    Decided February 6, 1992
    Reconsideration denied February 26, 1992.
    
      Virgil L. Brown & Associates, Virgil L. Brown, Bentley C. Adams III, Eric D. Hearn, for appellant.
   Per curiam.

It appearing that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted, it is hereby vacated.

Clarke, C. J., Bell, Benham and Fletcher, JJ., concur; Weltner, P. J., and Hunt, J., dissent.

Weltner, Presiding Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent.

The Court of Appeals finds a distinction between the use of a file by a witness “to refresh her recollection or memory of the precise total number of times she had met with the victim”; and a use by that witness that is “simply ascertaining that number.” Salley v. State, 199 Ga. App. 358, 360 (405 SE2d 260) (1991).

I am unable to comprehend any such difference. Because this case is controlled by Baxter v. State, 254 Ga. 538, 548 (331 SE2d 561) (1985), the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.

I am authorized to state that Justice Hunt joins in this dissent.

W. Fletcher Sams, District Attorney, J. David Fowler, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.