Court Opinion

ID: 9583718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:41:29.407374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:48.501103
License: Public Domain

Sears, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with Chief Justice Fletcher’s conclusion in his special concurrence that the expert’s testimony regarding the palm print was inadmissible hearsay.14 However, unlike Chief Justice Fletcher,15 I am unwilling to overrule our cases that hold that inadmissible hearsay has no probative value.16 Accordingly, because the only evidence corroborating the accomplice’s testimony was hearsay that has no probative value, I conclude that the accomplice’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated. I am thus constrained to conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support Roebuck’s conviction, and I must therefore dissent to the majority opinion.

 See Div. 1 of Chief Justice Fletcher’s special concurrence.

 See Div. 2 of Chief Justice Fletcher’s special concurrence.

 See, e.g., Woodruff v. Woodruff, 272 Ga. 485, 487 (531 SE2d 714) (2000).