Court Opinion

ID: 9598040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:04:36.714658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:08.917161
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
concurring specially.
While I agree with the result reached in Division 2 of the opinion, I take this opportunity to explain why I feel our Division 3 in Davis v. State, 249 Ga. 309 (290 SE2d 273) (1982) better resolves the problem of dealing with Code Ann. § 38-1801.
The two cases are duplicative in that both allow prior inconsistent statements of one’s own witness to come into evidence without a show of surprise. They are different in the methods they use to reach that result. This case avoids § 38-1801 because it allows the statement to be entered as substantive evidence, based on our decision in Gibbons v. State, 248 Ga. 858 (286 SE2d 717) (1982). Division 3 of Davis, supra, allows the statement to be entered as impeaching evidence by removing the requirement to show surprise before one may be considered entrapped by the statement. Of course, under both Davis and Ranger, the rule of Gibbons applies. The prior inconsistent statement is not subject to a hearsay objection and the jury may consider the statement for the truth of the matter asserted therein.
I disagree with the approach taken in Division 2 of this case because I feel the prior inconsistent statement is still impeaching evidence even though it is also now admissible as substantive evidence. Because it is still evidence which tends to directly “impeach a witness voluntarily called by [a party]” in spite of its additional value as substantive evidence, I feel that § 38-1801 still applies to one’s own witness who takes the stand and is subject to cross-examination. Because this court has chosen to adopt both approaches, it is clear that one may now use a prior inconsistent statement of one’s own witness both to impeach that witness and as substantive evidence without a show of surprise without running afoul of § 38-1801.
This is a good result because it allows us in this case to avoid the archaic notion that a party must vouch for the veracity of the witnesses he calls. By avoiding such archaic notions in the law of evidence, we improve our system of justice by giving jurors a better opportunity to have all the facts of a case properly presented to them *323before they make their decision.
For these reasons, I specially concur in Division 2 of this opinion.