Court Opinion

ID: 9592162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:11:05.00723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:16.489336
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring.
I fully concur in the Court’s opinion. With regard to Division 2, the majority correctly finds that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial based upon the victim’s mother’s statement that Banks had, on previous occasions, hit the victim. In view of the date of the trial and the manner in which this evidence was adduced, I agree with the majority’s rationale that because the witness’s statement was not intentionally elicited, the trial court’s curative instructions “were sufficient to prevent the alleged harmful testimony from having any prejudicial effect.” (Majority Opinion, p. 61.) However, I am constrained to note that had this case been tried subsequent to this Court’s opinion in Wall v. State, 269 Ga. 506 (500 SE2d 904) (1998), and had the State proffered the evidence as “prior difficulty” evidence, it probably would have been admissible with properly limiting instructions by the trial court.