Court Opinion

ID: 9781438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:37:45.572951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:26.501897
License: Public Domain

NAHMIAS, Justice,
concurring.
I write elsewhere today to express my doubts about the validity of this Court’s decision in Heard v. State, 261 Ga. 262, 262-263 (403 SE2d 438) (1991), which disregarded the plain language of OCGA § 16-3-21 (b) (2) and overruled prior precedent. See Smith v. State, 290 Ga. 768, 775 (723 SE2d 915) (2012) (Nahmias, J, concurring). As in Smith, however, the State has not asked us to reconsider Heard in this case, and the majority opinion applies Heard’s holding correctly in Division 2. I therefore concur in full in the majority opinion.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Carley and Justice Hines join in this concurrence.