Court Opinion

ID: 9611173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:53:00.820188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:10.725667
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
dissenting.
In my opinion, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in restricting redirect examination as to the use of court funds to pay the defense’s expert witness due to Hudson’s indigency. Moreover, even if the trial court did abuse its discretion, I do not believe that the mere revelation to the jury that Hudson did not personally pay the expert selected by his attorney could have benefitted the defense in any way. Thus, any error was harmless.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the trial court erred in permitting the State to cross-examine, regarding competency to stand trial, the same expert who testified in support of Hudson’s defense of insanity. See Harris v. State, 259 Ga. 511, 512 (1) (384 SE2d 647) (1989). Accordingly, I cannot join Divisions 2 or 4 of the majority opinion and I dissent to the reversal of the convictions.