Court Opinion

ID: 9594998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:34:46.736287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:37.277146
License: Public Domain

Cooper, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent because I cannot conclude as the majority does that the deficiencies in appellant’s trial counsel’s performance had no effect upon the verdict. Of particular significance is the failure of appellant’s counsel to secure the identity and presence of Ted Holsey at trial. Based on Holsey’s testimony at the hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial, he would have corroborated appellant’s testimony that he was only present during the drug transactions because of a romantic interest in Agent Harris. Thus, Holsey’s testimony is not merely cumulative, but rather it is corroborative, and I believe that there is at least a reasonable probability that had the jury had the benefit of that testimony the outcome of the trial would have been different. See Richardson v. State, 189 Ga. App. 113 (375 SE2d 59) (1988). Consequently, I would reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for new trial.
I am authorized to state that Judge Blackburn joins in this dissent.
*341Decided March 19, 1993 —
Reconsideration denied April 1, 1993
James N. Finkelstein, for appellant.
Britt R. Priddy, District Attorney, for appellee.