Court Opinion

ID: 9539707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:08:54.632144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:15.172345
License: Public Domain

Pope, Judge,
concurring specially.
I must respectfully disagree with the analysis in Division 1 of the majority opinion. In my view, under the circumstances in this case defendant adequately preserved his objection to the “other crimes” portion of the cited documents. Nevertheless, I fail to see how defendant could have been prejudiced by the admission in evidence of this immaterial and irrelevant information. See Hester v. State, 159 Ga. App. 642 (2) (284 SE2d 659) (1981). The relevant evidence of defendant’s status as that of a habitual violator was undisputed and conclusive, only the identity of defendant as the driver of the subject car being in dispute. The irrelevant matter in these documents was thus superfluous and could not have contributed to the verdicts. See Noles v. State, 164 Ga. App. 191 (2) (296 SE2d 768) (1982).
I am authorized to state that Judge Carley joins in this special concurrence.
*52Decided September 22, 1986
Rehearing denied November 25, 1986.
Michael L. Bankston, for appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, J. Brown Moseley, District Attorney, Britt R. Priddy, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.