Court Opinion

ID: 9796754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:04:13.553964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:28.405635
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:
Concur in Result.
1 I concur in the results reached by the Court and most of the analysis. However, I do disagree with the analysis on a couple of points.
12 First, the Court errs by citing as authority for the decision rendered cases from other states that are not valid precedent for this Court. The jurisprudence from this Court is more than sufficient to sustain the analysis and decision of the Court. Thus, that case law should be cited and not cases from irrelevant states.
1 3 Second, while I agree the trial court's failure to preserve the demonstrative aids for the record in this case was error, I cannot find error in the use of them in this case. These demonstrative aids, ie. poster sheets with contemporaneous listing of accurate statements by witnesses, were nothing more than group note taking. And, this Court has pushed note taking with a missionary zeal. While individual note taking cannot be monitored for individual accuracy, this group note taking was monitored by the court and the accuracy ensured. The notes were not overly emphasized because as demonstrative aides, they were not allowed to be taken into the jury room.