Court Opinion

ID: 9846539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:43:17.909714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:37.461171
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in Division 1, but dissent because of the holding in Division 2. The court correctly rules that the search warrant and affidavit were erroneously submitted to the jury. These documents would be in the same category as interrogatories, depositions, dying declarations and confessions, which are not permitted to go out with the jury. Walker v. State, 215 Ga. 128, 129 (2) (109 SE2d 748) (1959); Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78, 80 (2) (65 SE2d 158) (1951); Strickland v. State, 167 Ga. 452, 460 (6) (145 SE 879) (1928); Shedden v. Stiles, 121 Ga. 637, 640 (4) (49 SE 719) (1904). Their contents orally testified to are admissible but the inclusion of the documents themselves as exhibits for consideration in the jury room is not. Davis v. State, 178 Ga. App. 760, 763 (3) (344 SE2d 730) (1986); Morrow v. State, 166 Ga. App. 883, 884 (1) (305 SE2d 626) (1983). See Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 572 (7) (284 SE2d 277) (1981).1
I depart from the majority in applying the harmless error rule.
First, was the wrongly admitted evidence consistent with the theory of the defense? Lane v. State, 247 Ga. 19, 21 (4) (273 SE2d 397) (1981); Proctor v. State, 235 Ga. 720, 723 (221 SE2d 556) (1975); Heard v. State, 169 Ga. App. 609 (314 SE2d 451) (1984). Defendant was attempting to show that he was not “New York.” The affidavit tended to identify him as that individual by describing “New York” as tall and light complected. It described the confidential informant *901twice making controlled purchases of cocaine, inferentially from “New York,” at the location. The return listed defendant as the only person searched. This information was inconsistent with the theory of defense, i.e., mistaken identity, Lane, supra, as the State argued to the jury.
Decided December 5, 1990.
J. Robert Joiner, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Doris L. Downs, Carl P. Greenberg, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Second, is it “highly probable” that the inadmissible evidence did not contribute to the judgment? Heard, supra; Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 (230 SE2d 869) (1976). Because defendant’s sole defense rested on the contention that he was merely an innocent bystander, at the wrong place at the wrong time, the jury’s consideration of the affidavit during its deliberations cannot be found harmless. The law requires a new trial.
I am authorized to state that Judge Sognier and Judge Cooper join in this dissent.

 Appellant also argues that the documents contain additional evidence not testified to by the detective, plus the hearsay of an unnamed informant and the finding of probable cause by the magistrate, see Spence v. State, 96 Ga. App. 19, 21 (99 SE2d 309) (1957), but these grounds were not raised below.