FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, BRA NCH and BETHEL, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for re c ons ide r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 8, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A2 09 6 . THE STATE v . ORR.

B R A N C H , J u d g e.

Fo l l owi n g a ju ry t ri al i n Fl o y d Co u n t y Su p eri o r Co urt

, Ot t o Orr was co n v i ct ed

o f a s i n g l e co u n t each o f fam i l y v i o l en ce b at t ery an d cru el t y t o ch i l d ren i n t h e t h i rd

d eg ree. Orr fi l ed a m ot io n fo r a n ew t ri al as s ert i n g , in t er al i a, t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred

wh en i t fai led to d ecl are a m i s t ri al aft er th e St at e im p erm i s s i b l y co m

m en t ed o n Orr’ s

p re-arres t s i l en ce. Aft er a h eari n g , t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed Orr’ s m o t io n

. Th e St at e n o w

ap p eal s fro m t h at o rd er, arg u i n g t h at in l i g h t o f Ge o r g i a’ s n ew Ev i d en ce Co d e, t h e

l aw rel i ed o n b y t h e l o wer co u rt i s n o l o n g er v al id . W e fi nd n o erro r an d affi rm

.

On ap p eal fro m t h e g ran t o r d en i al of a m ot i o n fo r a n ew t ri al

, w e em p l o y t wo

d i fferen t s t an d ard s o f rev i ew:W e rev i ew de no v o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n as t o an y q u es t i o n s o f l aw,

wh i l e ap p l y i ng th e cl earl y erro n eo u s s t an dard of rev i ew to a n y fact ual

fi n d i n g s m ad e b y t h at co u rt

. . . . T hu s , we wi l l u p h o l d t h e tri al co u rt ’ s

fact u al fi n d in g s i f t h ere i s a n y e v i den ce t o su p po rt t h em , an d w e d efer

t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s cred i b i l i t y d et erm i n at io n s

.

W ed el v. S ta t e , 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 2 8 , 2 8 (7 61 SE2 d 4 5 4) (2 01 4 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ).

Th e fact s rel ev an t to t h i s ap p eal are u n d i s p u t ed an d s h o w t h at t h e c h a r g e s

ag ai n s t Orr aro s e o ut o f a p h y s i cal al t ercat i o n b et ween Orr an d h is wi fe, wh i ch t o o k

p l ace i n t h e p res en ce o f t h ei r i n fan t ch i l d

. At t ri al

, O r r c l a i m ed h e act ed i n s el fd efen s e, t es t i fy i n g t h at o n t he n i g h t i n qu es t io n , h e w as t al ki n g o n t h e p ho n e wi t h h i s

s i st er, b ut h i s wi fe as s um ed h e was o n t he p h o n e wi t h “ an o t h er wo m an .” Act i n g o n

t h i s as s um

p t i o n , h i s w i f

e h i t Or r o n t h e head wi t h a g l as s as ht ray , s p l it t i n g h i s s k in

an d cau s i n g s i g n i fi can t b leed i n g

. O rr res p o n d ed b y s t ri k i ng h i s w i fe wi th h i s cl o s ed

fi st

, b ut h e cl ai m ed t h at h e on l y s t ru ck h i s wi fe o n e t i m e. O n cro s s -ex am i n at i o n , Orr

ack n owl ed ged t h at h e h ad n ev er co n t act ed p o l i ce t o rep o rt t h is al l eg ed as sau l t b y h i s

wi fe n or h ad h e t o l d an y o n e i n l aw en fo rcem en t p ri or t o t ri al ab o u t h is wi fe’ s ro l e in

t h e co u p l e’ s al t ercat i o n

.

Orr al s o p res en t ed t h e t es t i m o n y o f h i s s i s t er an d h i s co u s i n

. Orr’ s s i s ter s t at ed

t h at s h e was t al ki n g o n t h e t el ep h o n e wi t h Orr o n t h e n ig h t i n q u es ti o n wh en s h e

2s u d d en l y h eard s cream i n g an d ye l l i n g

. W h en Orr ret u rn ed to t h e co n vers at i o n , h e

rep o rt ed t h at h i s wi fe h ad h i t h im i n t he h ead w i t h an as ht ray

. W hen t h e s i s t er s aw Orr

l at er t h at n ig h t

, s h e o b serv ed t hat h e h ad a gas h o n h i s h ead

. O n cro s s -ex am i n at i o n,

t h e s i s t er ack n o wl ed g ed t h at Orr d i d n o t rep o rt t he i n ci d en t to t h e p o l ice, al t h ou g h s h e

en co urag ed h i m

t o d o s o

.

Orr’ s co u s i n o ff

e r e d s i m i l ar t es ti m o ny , st at in g t h at s h e h ad seen Orr at h i s

m o th er’ s h o m e l at e o n t h e n i gh t i n q u es t i o n an d s aw t h at h e h ad a “ g o o se eg g ” o n h i s

h ead wh ere t h e s k i n was sp l it an d b l eed in g

. In res p o n s e t o q u es t i o n s fro m t h e

p ro s ecu to r o n cro s s -ex am i n at i o n , t h e co u s i n ack n o wl ed g ed t h at Orr d i d n ot rep o rt h i s

wi fe’ s co n d u ct t o p o l i ce or t ak e a p i ct u re o f h i s w o un d

, ex p l ai n in g t h at Orr d i d n ot

wan t h i s wi fe t o g et i n t ro u b l e.

Du ri n g h er cl o s i n g arg u m en t , t h e p ro secu t o r s t at ed :

[Orr] w an t s t o no w cl ai m s el f-d efen s e. I fi n d t h a t p art i cu l arl y

co n v en ien t . He n ev er t o l d t h e s t o ry [o f h i s wi fe’ s at t ack o n h i m ] t o t he

p o l i ce, n ev er o n ce s ai d :

. . . I’ m t h e v i ct i m h ere. Sh e cam e at m e wi t h an

as h t ray

. I s u b m i t t o y ou th i s i s s o m et hi n g [Orr] m ad e u p b ecau s e h e h as

an i n t eres t i n t h e o u t co m e o f t h i s cas e.

3Im

m ed i at el y fo l l o w i n g t h es e s t at em en t s, d efen s e co u n sel m o v ed fo r a m i s t ri al

o n t h e g ro u n d t h at t h e St at e’ s arg u m en t co ns t i t u t ed an im p erm i s si b l e c o m

m en t o n

Orr’ s ri g ht t o rem ai n s il en t

. T h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o ti o n , an d t h e ju ry fo u n d Orr

g u i l t y o n b o t h co u n t s o f t h e i n di ct m en t

. A ft er en t eri n g ju dg m en t o n t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

,

h o wev er, t he t ri al co u rt g ran t ed Orr’ s m ot i o n fo r a n ew t ri al

, co n cl ud i n g t h at i t h ad

erred i n d en y i n g t h e m o ti o n fo r a m i s t ri al . Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

In g ran t i n g Orr a n ew t ri al

, t h e l o w er co u rt rel i ed o n Ma ll or y v. S ta t e , 2 6 1 Ga.

6 2 5 (4 0 9 SE2 d 8 3 9 ) (1 9 91 ), o v erru l ed o n o t h er g r o u n d s , Cl a r k v. S t a t e , 2 7 1 Ga. 6,

9 -1 0 (5 1 5 SE2 d 1 5 5 ) (1 9 9 9), an d i t s p ro g en y

. Ma l l o r y h el d t h at i n cri m i n al cas es , t h e

St at e co ul d n o t co m

m en t u p o n a d efen dan t ’ s s i l en ce o r fai l u re t o co m e fo rward “ ev en

wh ere t h e d efen d an t has n ot recei v ed M iran da warn i n g s an d wh ere h e t ak es t h e s t an d

i n h i s own d efen se.” 2 6 1 Ga. at 6 3 0 (5 ). I n reach i n g t h i s co n cl u s i o n , t h e Co u rt

r e c o g n i z ed t h at ev i d en ce o f a d efen d an t ’ s s i l en ce was n o t p ro hi b i t ed b y fed eral

co n st i t u t i o n a l l aw. Id

. at 6 2 9-6 3 0 (5 ). Th e Co urt al s o ack no wl ed g ed t h at a p art y ’ s

s i len ce n o rm al l y wo u l d co n st i tu t e an ad m i ss i o n ag ai n s t i n t eres t u n d er fo rm er OCGA

§ 2 4 -3 -3 6

. 1 Th e Ma l l o r

y C o u rt co n cl ud ed

, h o wev er, “ t h at in cri m in al cas es , a

1 Fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -3 -3 6 d efi n ed “ ad m i s s i o n ” t o i n cl u d e “ [a] cq u ies cen ce o r

s i len ce, wh en t h e ci rcu m st an ces req u i re an an s wer, a den i al

, o r o t her co n d u ct

. . . .”

4co m

m en t u p o n a d efen d an t ’ s s i l en ce o r fai l u re t o co m e fo rward i s far m o re p reju d i ci al

t h an p ro b at i v e. Acco rd i n g l y , fro m t he d at e o f p ub l i cat i o n o f t h i s o p i n io n

. . . s u ch a

co m m en t wi l l n o t b e al l o wed .” 2 6 1 Ga. at 6 3 0 (5 ).

Rel y i n g on Ma ll o r

y an d i t s p ro g en y , th e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co urt h as ex p l ai n ed

t h at t h ere i s “ a b ri gh t -l i n e ru le i n Geo rg i a t h at t h e St at e m ay n o t co m m en t o n ei t h er

a d efen dan t ’ s s i l en ce p ri or t o arres t o r fai l u re t o co m e fo rward v o lu n t ari l y

. ” S a n d er s

v. S t at e , 2 9 0 Ga. 6 3 7, 6 4 0 (4 ) (7 2 3 SE2 d 4 3 6 ) (2 0 1 2 ). See al so R eyn ol d s v. S t a t e , 2 8 5

Ga. 7 0, 71 (6 7 3 SE2 d 8 5 4 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (t h e St at e is s t ri ct l y p ro h ib i t ed fro m co m m en t i n g

u p o n a defen d an t ’ s s i len ce b ecau s e “ i n t h e s i t u at i o n o f a cri m i n al d efen d an t

, t h i s

fai l u re to s p eak o r act wi l l m o s t o f t e n b e ju d g ed as ev i d en ce o f t h e ad m i s s i o n o f

cri m i n al res p o n s i b i l i t y ”); Co l l i n s v. S t a t e , 2 8 9 Ga. 6 66

, 6 6 7-6 6 8 (1 ) (7 1 5 SE2 d 1 3 6 )

(2 0 1 1). An d i n Ja rr et t v. S t a t e , 2 6 5 G a. 2 8 (4 5 3 SE2 d 4 6 1 ) (1 9 95 ), th e Su p rem e

Co u rt ex t en d ed M

a l l o r y an d h el d t h at “ a wi t n es s in a cr i mi n al t ri al m ay n o t t es t i fy as

t o a d ecl aran t ’ s s t at em en t s b as ed o n t h e acq u i es cen ce o r s il en ce o f th e accu s ed .” 2 6 5

Ga. at 2 9 (1 ) (em

p h as i s i n o ri g i n al ).

Th e Geo r g i a Su p rem e Co u rt s u b seq u en tl y h el d

, h owev er, t h at n o t ev ery

v i o l at i o n o f t h e Ma ll o r

y ru l e w o u l d en t i t l e a d efen d an t t o a n ew tri al

. Sp eci fi cal l y , n o

n ew tri al i s req u i red if t h e erro r was “ h arm l es s bey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t.” Al l en v.

5S t a t e , 27 2 Ga. 5 1 3

, 5 15 (5 ) (5 3 0 SE2 d 1 8 6 ) (2 0 0 0 ). “ Th e d et erm in at i o n o f h arm l es s

erro r m u s t b e m ad e o n a cas e-b y -cas e b a s i s , t ak i n g i n to co n s id erat i o n t h e fact s , t h e

t ri al co n t ex t o f t he erro r, an d t h e p reju d i ce creat ed t h ereb y as ju x t ap os ed ag ai n s t t h e

s t ren gt h o f th e ev i d en ce of d efe n d a n t ’s g u i l t.” Id

. at 5 15 -5 1 6 (5 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). As t h i s Co u rt h as ex p l ai n ed :

W h en d et erm i n in g wh et h er t h e St at e’ s u n ch al l en g ed co m m en t s o r

q u es t i o n s ab o ut a d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t t o re m a i n s i l en t p reju d i ce t hat

d efen d an t

, we co n s i d er a n u m b er o f fact o rs

. Th es e i n cl u de wh et h er th e

erro r was an i s ol at ed i n ci d en t

, o r i ns t ead co n s i s t ed o f s ev eral q ues t i o n s

o r co m m en t s , an d wh et h er t h e e rro r w as i n ad v ert en t

, rat h er t h an a

d el i b erat e at t em

p t b y t h e St at e t o u se t h e d e f e n d an t ’ s s i l en ce ag ai n s t

h i m

. W e al s o ex am i n e t h e ‘ t ri al co n t ex t ’ o f t h e erro r, an d t a k e a

p art i cu l arl y d i m v i ew o f t h e St at e’ s co n du ct i n a r g u i n g d u ri n g cl o s i n g

t h at ev i d en c e o f t h e defen d an t ’ s s i l en ce s h o u l d b e v i ewed as ev i d en ce

o f h i s g u i l t. Fi nal l y , we an al y ze wh et h er, i n l i g h t o f t h e e v i d en ce

p res en t ed

, th ere was a p o s s i b il i t y t h at t h e St at e’ s i m pro p er co m

m en t s

co n t ri b u t ed t o t h e g u il t y v erd i ct

. In o t h er wo rd s , we ex am i ne w het h er

t h e ev i d en ce o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s g u i l t was ov erwh el m i n g or w h et h er th e

ev i d en ce was co n fl i ct i ng

.

S co tt v. S t a t e , 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. 7 1 0

, 7 1 7 ( 2 ) ( a ) (7 0 0 SE2 d 6 9 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (ci t at i on s

o m it t ed ).

6Here, t h e t ri al co u rt fo un d t hat i t h ad erred i n d en y i n g Orr’ s m o t i o n fo r a

m i s t ri al wi t h o u t d et erm i n i n g wh et h er t he p ro s ecu t o r’ s cl o s in g arg u m en t an d t h e

St at e’ s el i ci t at io n o f t es t i m o n y rel at i n g to O rr’ s fai l ure t o co m e fo rward were h arm fu l

t o Orr. Aft er ap p ly i n g t h at an al y s i s , t h e l o w er co u rt co n cl u d ed t hat t h e St at e’ s co n d u ct

was “ n ot h arm l es s b ey on d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t” b ecau s e “ a reas o n ab l e p o s s i b i l i t y

ex i s t s t hat [t h e p ro secu t o r’s ] co m m en t s i n fl u en ced th e ju ry ’ s deci s i o n.” Th e co u rt

t h erefo re fo u n d t hat Orr was en t i t l ed t o a n ew t ri al

.

Th e St at e ch al l en g es t h i s ru l i n g , p o i n t i n g o u t t hat s i n ce t h e en act m en t o f

Geo rg i a’ s n ew Ev id en ce Co d e, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt of Geo rg i a h as cal led i n to q u es t i o n

t h e co n t i n u i n g v al i d i ty o f t h e bri g h t -l i n e ru l e es tab l is h ed i n Ma l l o r y

. In d o i n g s o , t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt h as i n d i cat ed t h at a d efen d an t ’ s p re-arres t si l en ce o r fai l u re t o co m e

fo rward m ay b e ad m is s i b l e i n s o m e cas es

. Ex p l ai n in g “ t h at Ma l l o r y was d eci d ed n ot

o n co n s t i tu t i on al g ro un d s b u t rat h er b as ed o n fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -3 -3 6 ,” t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt h as rep eat ed l y s t a ted t hat “ [w] e ex p res s n o o p i n i o n ab o ut th e co n t i n u i n g

v al i d i t y o f Ma ll o r

y u n d er t h e n ew Ev i d en ce Co d e.” S t a t e v. S i ms , 2 9 6 Ga. 4 6 5

, 4 7 1

(3 ) (7 6 9 SE2 d 6 2 ) (2 01 5 ). See al s o Ken n eb r ew v. S ta te

, 2 9 9 Ga. 8 6 4

, 8 7 2

, n

. 4 (7 9 2

SE2 d 6 9 5 ) (2 0 1 6 ); S

ea b o l t v. No r r i s , 2 9 8 Ga. 5 8 3

, 5 8 7 (3 ), n

. 3 (7 8 3 SE2 d 9 1 3 )

(2 0 1 6); W

i ls o n v. S t a t e , 2 9 5 Ga

. 8 4

, 8 8 (3 ), n

. 6 (7 5 7 SE2 d 8 2 5 ) (2 0 1 4 ); Ro mer v.

7S t a t e , 2 93 G a. 3 3 9

, 3 4 3 (2 ) n

. 4 (7 4 5 SE2 d 63 7 ) (2 0 1 3 ); Y an cey v. S t a t e , 2 9 2 Ga. 8 1 2,

8 1 7 (2 ), n

. 9 (7 4 0 SE2 d 6 2 8 ) (2 0 1 3). Ad d i ti o n al l y , i n S i mmo ns v. S t a t e , 2 9 9 Ga. 3 7 0

( 7 8 8 S E2 d 4 9 4) (2 0 16 ), t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f G eo rg i a h el d t h at a v i o l at i o n o f t h e

Ma l lo r y ru l e co u l d no t b e co n s i d ered p l ai n erro r b ecau s e i t was no lo ng er cl ear t h at

Ma l lo r y co n s t i t ut ed v al id l aw. Id

. at 3 7 4 (2 ) (“ [A] n erro r i s pl ai n if i t i s c l ear o r

o b v i o u s un d er cu rren t l aw. An erro r can n o t be p l ai n fo r t h e r e i s n o co nt ro l l i n g

au t h o ri t y o n p oi nt .”) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Rel y i n g o n t h i s l i n e o f cas es , t h e St at e arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt was n o l o n g er

b o u n d b y M

a l l o r y

. T h e St at e fu rt h er co n t en ds t h at u n d er O CGA § 2 4 -8 -8 0 1 2 an d

rel ev an t fed eral p reced en t

, ev i d en ce o f a d efen d a n t ’s pre-arres t s i l en ce m ay b e

ad m i s s i b l e. See Jen ki n s , 4 4 7 U. S. at 2 4 0

. Th u s, t h e St at e as s ert s t h at i n d eci d i n g t h e

m o ti o n fo r a n ew t ri al

, th e l o wer co u rt s h o ul d h av e an al y zed wh et h er t h e ev i d en ce at

2 OCGA § 2 4 -8 -8 0 1 defi n es a s t at em en t t o i n cl u d e “ [n ] on v erb al co n d u ct o f a

p ers o n , i f i t i s i n t en d ed b y t h e p ers o n as an as s ert i o n .” OCGA § 2 4 -8 -8 0 1 (a) (2 ). It

fu rt her p ro v i d e s t hat an ad m i s s i o n b y a p art y -o p p o n en t in cl u d es : “ (A) Th e p art y ’ s

o wn s t at em en t

, i n ei t h er an in d i v i d ual o r rep res en tat i ve c a p a c i ty ; [an d] (B) A

s t at em en t of wh i ch th e p art y h as m an i fes t ed an ad o p t io n o r b el i ef i n i t s t ru t h [.] ” OCGA § 2 4 -8 -8 0 1 (d ) (2 ).

8i s su e w as ad m i s si b l e u n der O C GA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 3 as b ei ng m ore p ro b at i v e t h an

p reju d i ci al

.

W h at t h e St at e’ s arg um en t fai l s t o ack n o w l e d g e , h o wev er, i s t h at al t h o u g h

Ma l lo r y h as b een cal led i nt o q u es ti o n , i t has n ev er b een ov erru l ed

. An d i n t h e

ab s en ce o f a d eci si o n f

r o m o u r Su p rem e Co u rt ex p res s l y o v erru l i n g Ma l l o r y , t h i s

Co u rt

, l i k e t h e t ri al co urt

, rem ai n s b o u nd b y i t s h o l d i n g. See Ch i n P ak v. Ga

. Dep t

.

o f Beh a vi o r a l Hea l t h & Devel o p men t a l Di s a b i l i t i es , 31 7 G a. Ap p

. 4 8 6, 4 8 8 (7 3 1

SE2 d 3 84 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (“ t h i s Co urt has n o au t h o ri t y t o o v erru l e o r m o d i fy a d eci s i o n m ad e

b y t he Su p rem e Co u rt of Geo rg i a, as ‘ t he d eci si on s o f t h e Su p rem e Co u rt s h al l b i n d

a l l o t h er co u rt s as p reced en t s’ ”), q u ot i n g G a. Co n s t

. of 1 98 3

, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, P a r

.

V I

. See al s o Ca rg i le v. S t a t e , 1 94 Ga. 2 0, 2 2 (1 ) (2 0 SE2 d 4 1 6 ) (1 9 4 2 ) (t h e

co n st i t u t io n al p ro v is i o n t h at d eci s i on s o f Su p rem e Co u rt sh al l b i n d t h e Co u rt o f

Ap p eal s as p reced en ts i s ap pl i cab l e i n al l cas es ). Acco rd i n g ly

, t he tri al co u rt d i d n ot

err wh en i t ap p l i ed Ma l l o r y an d i t s p ro g en y

t o d eci d e Orr’ s m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al

. 4

3 OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 p ro v i d es : “ Rel ev an t ev i den c e m a y b e ex cl u ded i f i t s

p ro b at i v e val u e i s s u bs t an t i al l y o ut wei g h ed b y t h e d an g er o f u n fai r p reju d i ce,

co n fu s i o n o f t he i s s u es , o r m i s l ead i n g t h e ju ry o r b y co n s i d erat i o n s o f u n d u e d el ay ,

was te o f t i m e, o r n eed l es s p res en t at i o n o f cu m u l at i v e ev i d en ce.”

4 Th e St at e h as no t ch al l en g ed t h e t ri al co urt ’ s fac t u a l co n cl u s i o n s t h at t h e

p ro s ecu ti o n v i ol at ed t h e b ri gh t -l i n e ru l e es t ab l i s h ed by Ma l l o r y an d t h at Orr s u ffered

p reju d i ce as a res u l t.

9See Tr a n v

. S t a t e , 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. 54 6

, 5 53 (2 ) (c), n

. 7 (7 9 8 SE2 d 7 1 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (“ we

co n ti n u e t o fo l l o w t h e p reced en t es t ab l i s h ed b y t he Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a” o n t h e

ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f a defen d an t ’ s p re-arres t s i l en ce o r f a i l u r e t o co m e fo rward ). W e

t h erefo re affi rm t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er.

Ju d g men t a f f i r med

. McFa d

d e n

, P. J. co n cu r

s

, a n d B et h el

, J., co n cu rs

s p eci a l l y .*

* THIS O P INION IS PHYSICAL PRECEDENT ONLY. COURT OF APPEALS

RULE 3 3 .2 (a).

10A1 7 A2 09 6 . THE STATE v . ORR.

B E T H E L , J u d g e, co n cu rri n g s p eci al l y

.

I ag ree wi t h t h e m ajo ri t y th at t h e Ma l l o r y 1 ru l e ap pl ies an d co nt ro l s i n th i s cas e.

I wri t e s ep arat el y t o em ph as i z e m

y b el i ef t hat Ma l lo r

y i s b as ed n ei t h er o n

co n st i t u t io n al n or s t at u to ry i n t erp ret at i o n

. Rat h er, I read th e ru l e an n o u n ced in

Ma l lo r y t o b e a co u rt m ad e l aw. 2 If I ag reed wi t h t h e Su p rem e Co urt t h at Ma l l o r y was

1 Ma l l o r y v. S t a t e , 2 6 1 Ga. 6 2 5 (4 0 9 SE2 d 8 3 9 ) (1 9 9 1 ), o v erru led o n o t h er

g ro u nd s , Cl a rk v. S t a t e , 2 7 1 Ga. 6 , 9 -1 0 (5 1 5 SE2 d 1 5 5 ) (1 9 9 9 ).

2 In Ma l l or

y , aft er fi n d i n g n o U. S. co n st i tu t i o n al p ro h ib i t i o n i m p l i cat ed b y t h e fact s b efo re i t

, o ur Su p rem e Co u rt n o t ed th at “ each ju ri s d i ct i o n rem ai n s f r e e t o fo rm u l at e” i t o w n ru l es p u rs u an t t o Jen ki ns v. An d er s o n , 4 4 7 U. S. 2 31

, 2 4 0 (1 0 0 SCt

2 1 2 4 ) (1 9 8 0 ). T h e S u p r e m e Co u rt t h en referen ced fo rm er OCGA § 24 -3 -3 6 (a ru l e

o f i n c l u s i o n ) b efo re an no u n ci n g a ru l e of ex cl u s io n t h at in v o l v ed n o an al y s i s o r

ex p li cat io n rel at ed t o t he s t at u t e. Of co u rs e, t he ru le an n o u n ced in Ma ll o r y can fi n d

s u p p ort i n o u r s t at e co n s t i t u t i on (e.g

. Ga. Co n st

. o f 1 9 8 3

, Art

. I, Sec I, Par. XVI), an d

i n o th er fo rm er a n d c u r r e n t pro v i s i on s of o u r ev i d en ce co d e. I am n o t p ers u ad ed

, h o wev er, t h at t h e ru l e i s d ep en d en t o n fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -3 -3 6

.“ b as ed o n fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -3 -3 6

, ” 3 I wo u ld fi n d it n eces s ary t o ev al u at e wh et h er

t h e ad op t i o n o f t h e n ew ev i d en ce co d e ab ro gat ed t h e h o l di n g th erei n

. Gi v en t h e

d ram at i c d i fferen ces i n t h e l an g u ag e o f t he n ew co d e a n d t h e f a c t t h at t h e n ew

l an g u ag e t rack s so cl os el y wi t h fed eral law, a p ers u as i ve arg u m en t co u l d b e m ad e fo r

ab ro g at i o n b y l eg is l at i v e act

. Si n ce, h owev er, t h e Ma l l o r y ru l e was no t a pro d u ct o f

an i n t erp ret at i on o f fo rm er OCGA § 24 -3 -3 6

, n o s uch an a l ys i s i s req u i red o r

ap p ro p ri at e an d we rem ai n b o u n d b y i t u nt i l fu rt h er d i rect i o n fro m t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt

.

3 S t a t e v. S i m s , 2 9 6 Ga. 4 6 5 , 4 7 1 (3 ) (7 6 9 SE2 d 6 2 ) (2 0 1 5).

2