Court Opinion

ID: 9598972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:13:31.527413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:10.125642
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
As I cannot concur with Division 6 of the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority has misapplied the decision of Chandler v. State, 261 Ga. 402, 407 (3) (405 SE2d 669). “The Chandler procedure sought to avoid a ‘battle by surprise’ by providing the State with ‘reasonable notice’ of the defendant’s intent to introduce specified evidence of a victim’s violent acts against third parties.” Watkins v. State, 264 Ga. 657, 661 (4), 662 (449 SE2d 834). The procedure originally stated in Chandler is consistent with subsequently adopted Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.6 which provides, in part, that the defendant’s notice of intent to present evidence or acts of violence by the victim against the defendant or third persons “shall state the act of violence, date, county and the name, address and telephone number of the person for each specific act of violence sought to be introduced.” With regard to witness Childers, defendant failed to provide any particulars as to date, place, names of victims, or other details such as would identify any specific incident. Thus, the defendant “failed to provide any information which would put the state on notice of the evidence it intended to offer such that the state would have the opportunity for rebuttal.” Miller v. State, 263 Ga. 723, 724 (2) (438 SE2d 81). Accepting that Childers’ inability to pinpoint the dates would not alone preclude admission of her testimony, there are additional circumstances which render the proffered testimony so general and equivocal in nature that the State is afforded no opportunity for rebuttal. In addition to the absence of dates, the proffer fails to identify any person assaulted by the victim or the place where any of the alleged events occurred. The proffered evidence affords the State no opportunity to identify any specific event about which Childers may testify. Under these circumstances, I would hold that the trial court did not err in excluding the testimony of witness Childers.
*592Decided December 2, 1997.
Patton & Price, Clarence R. Patton, for appellant. *593Tambra P. Colston, District Attorney, C. Stephen Cox, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
*592Nor do I believe the trial court erred in refusing to admit the testimony of witness Todd concerning an incident during which his dog was shot by the victim. The rule adopted in Chandler has been held to be applicable only to prior acts of violence toward a human. Marks v. State, 210 Ga. App. 281, 282 (1) (435 SE2d 703). The State was not provided with any notice of an act of violence against witness Todd. Defendant’s notice to the State related the shooting of a dog owned by witness Todd and that this witness “is further expected to testify that the assault of the alleged victim [on his dog] caused him to be in fear of great bodily harm.” This expression of apprehension or fear does not amount to a statement that an act of violence was directed by the victim toward witness Todd. Nonetheless, at the hearing on the admissibility of the defense evidence of acts of violence by the alleged victim, defense counsel restated the testimony anticipated from witness Todd to include the statement quoted by the majority that “Mr. Todd thought he was being shot at, that the bullets were flying.” Defense counsel also inquired of the trial court during colloquy: “[Witness Todd] cannot testify that Mr. LeCroy was pointing a gun in his direction and shooting?” However, the scope of the statements attributed to witness Todd at the hearing by defense counsel exceeded that of the notice provided the State. If the statements of the anticipated testimony of witness Todd are considered separately, the statements provided in the notice to the State were properly excluded pursuant to the Marks decision, while the expanded statements of witness Todd’s testimony provided by defense counsel at the hearing were properly excluded because no notice was provided the State pursuant to USCR 31.6.
Furthermore, even if the excluded evidence of acts of violence by the victim should have been admitted, there was no harm since the excluded evidence was at most cumulative of defendant’s admitted evidence by other witnesses concerning the victim’s propensity for violence. It is highly unlikely that the excluded evidence would have altered the verdict. Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 (230 SE2d 869); Marks v. State, 210 Ga. App. 281, 283 (1), supra. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Judge Eldridge joins in this dissent.